As Bill S. said above, that’s what social conservatives did.

Perhaps you should consider that some libertarians are doing the same.

Mew

If your experience is with Ron Paul supporters, then I reiterate *your own point* – those aren’t libertarians.

If your experience is with the Libertarian party, then I reiterate *my* point, they’re political *morons*. (even the U.S. Communist Party figured out they’d get more mileage and cred by endorsing Dems … )

I would suggest that if the CO GOP wish to avoid minority party status for the long term that y’all had better start wedging apart the above groups, as well as figuring out what the “independents” *want*.

Mew

but do the elections actually show this?

Polling shows a lot of things .. some of them are even true.

I would suggest that a hardcore ficon would attract enough support from all three groups – regular GOP, thinking libertarians, and “independents” – to do very well…

Mew

I’m not *in* Colorado, so .. everything’s second or third-paw and filtered.. but Aaron Gardner seems to be taking it to the Dems…

Are you saying, by the way, that running as a social conservative used to work in Colorado? I find that .. surprising .. but maybe that’s because I’m from Illinois, where it’s *never* worked.

If true, then the CO GOP are going to find themselves out of power until enough figure out how to be a three-legged conservative.

Mew

And he seems intent on kicking over the lib machine.

Focusing on social issues tends not to work anywhere… Ask Santorum or Huckabee. What does work is a candidate with three legs… Someone the Colorado RTL can’t criticize, but whose campaign is about fiscal issues.

I don’t see this as a particularly hard balance, but again, I’m in Illinois.

Mew

is keeping the coalition lit after the election.

That’s where the Reagan Revolution and the Contract With America both fell apart .. Conservatives – a fusion from all four* groups – went to D.C., kicked over the troughs, drove out the Dems, and … went native and started squabbling with one another.

How do we *stay* fused? If that’s not possible, how do we arrange to be able to re-fuse every 2 years?

Heading back toward thearmedforcesteaparty’s initial stupidity (erm, point) … there is *no* time for a purge, there is plenty of time to agree to disagree and to work on issues where there is agreement.

Mew

* Social, Fiscal, Defense, Liberty

The whole “leaderless” thing was, when the Tea Parties first spilled into the streets, a feature, not a bug.

The point of the protests was the tax increases, the debt increases, the massive government overreach… I can go back and link all the articles by various right wing bloggers from the time period, and even find the initial “Tea Party” video if you’d like.

You’re right, the Tea Party is *locally* somewhat vulnerable to being taken over by weirdoes, but .. why not start a competing local branch? There’s *nothing* preventing it, eh?

Further, the point of the Tea Parties was – as I mentioned – to protest government overreach.

Bill S. pointed out, around here somewhere, that most of those protesting were also social conservatives, but the *issues* that moved people into the street were not the “pure” social issues of abortion or gay marriage or the death penalty .. they were the financial/moral issues of excessive taxation, debt, and .. overreach.

I do not say that the Tea Parties are perfect, but given the procto-rooter that Joe The Plumber and Sarah From Alaska, not to mention Michelle Malkin and several other bloggers received for saying pretty much the same things that were on Tea Party signs, I don’t see how a leader could have risen… the Obama disciples in the media were willing to do the full Alinsky on any who popped up.

In my opinion, the leaderless nature is still a feature, not a bug – the bugs are the ideologues who want to take the raw power demonstrated by the Tea Parties over the impure *moral/fiscal* issues and use it to advance their chosen “pure” social issues.

Mew

For taking out the trash.

Mew

Not mine. Munroe is a whole different level of brilliant.
(hint: click on the list .. but fair warning, XKCD is not always Safe For Work so browse the archives at home…)

The problem with trying to answer your question is that the definitions get rather .. melded together.

Is abortion a fiscal issue or a social one?

The procedure costs money, and while it potentially saves money for the mother, it costs society a potential productive citizen .. so even this issue has a financial aspect, eh?

There’s also a liberty aspect – clearly the baby’s right to pursue happiness, let alone life, has been infringed.

Further, the national defense will be weakened by one member of the unorganized militia.

How about tax codes? Pretty clearly a financial issue, but .. removing tax breaks for churches would be a social issue.

It really boils down to dealing with individuals and small groups and their motivations… not with issues at all.

The Tea Parties were about taxes, in a way, but also about government overreach, i.e. liberty, and also about social (moral) problems with over-taxation.

In short, I don’t have an answer for you, just another way to look at the problem.

Mew

I kinda liked the Sun Tzu allusion, so I’ll leave that in.

Libs choose to battle in the narrow place, because their numbers are few; Conservatives are large in number but weak in resources, and have foolishly allowed the Libs to choose where we meet – we should choose to battle in the open places where our numbers give us the advantage.

(i.e. we should make it about all 50 statehouses, and bleed the Dems of their resources….)

Thing is, ColdWarrior says the same thing… and he has a plan and a program.

Mew