I like the Tea Party movement, but the wisdom of crowds and enthusiasm are a thin foundation for any philosophy or movement to rest on for too long.

with conservative support (such as RS) doesn’t defuse the Tancredo “extremist” charge, it exacerbates the problems related with it, given that Tancredo was a big figure down there and something of a conservative darling for a while. Whatever the merits and demerits of supporting Tancredo in CO, Tancredo’s run is incredibly self-indulgent and damaging to the Party.

I was referencing the statement, “the mob is where the fight is” (which in turn was meant as a rebuttal to the fact that some bad candidates have come out of the Tea Party movement with scarcely a platitude to their names). I don’t care about “mobs” or “fights”, I care about consistency and effectiveness in moving closer to the ideals that you note. If the Tea Party ever becomes ineffective at moving the ball forward, or ignores its original objectives in favor of the typical populist claptrap (closed borders, more government, unenforceable laws against some social malady or other), I don’t care about how much “fight” the Tea Party has in it.

It is not material easily sloganeered or adequately encapsulated by a pithy phrase, and is well-grounded on defined philosophical concepts, not “common sense” (a buzzphrase which is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt). As you’ll note, I said wisdom of the crowds and enthusiasm are a thin foundation, not “Constitutional sentiment and wanting to live within one’s means”. This is especially the case when you consider that those two often conflict. The Tea Parties, thus far, are proving quite resilient at maintaining and promoting their original mission and not giving in to mission creep, while staying disorganized. I support their current iteration and hope that they continue as they are in the future (especially when a Republican administration takes power). However, they are the exception to the typical populist movement, not the norm, and it is eminently possible that they may follow the populist movements of our past into the gutter. Again, I hope that that does not happen, and the only way to ensure that it doesn’t is to make sure that Tea Partiers themselves are praising the movement for the right things (focus on the Constitution and living within our means) and not pointless peripherals or imaging (authenticity, enthusiasm, commonality, anti-elitism).

Many of Tancredo’s views on immigration, nativism and naturalization, and his associations with like-minded people, have served to make him repugnant in my eyes. That, and his stunt in the CO race, don’t make me simpatico in any way with Tancredo and his political career. However, it must be acknowledged that 1) Maes cannot win, and that 2) Maes left us, not the other way around, by advocating for Hickenlooper over Tancredo. It’s clear that Tancredo has a better chance, and that he would be much better than Hickenlooper for a variety of reasons. Much as I dislike the man, we can trust Tancredo 100% on issues of states’ powers in a Federalist system, taxes, spending, and several others which directly affect states yesterday. Hickenlooper is not.

We support the Republican party based on political exigency and utility of that support to the conservative movement, not because we like elephants, and in this particular case, even the establishment Rs and the national party are against Maes. This is an eminently justifiable exception. Considering that we held our noses for McCain, I think that we can do no less in CO’s race (though the sentiment of Republican loyalism is admirable).