« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Tea Party; Lessons Learned

By: tomtflorida (Diary)  |  November 27th, 2010 at 08:04 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

tea-party-protest1

Has enough time passed yet to take an honest look at the overall results of the November election, from a tea party perspective?

Considering that we have a two party system at this point, I buy into the philosophy that we are conservatives in the primary and Republicans in the general. Now, should the Republican Party blow this second chance they’ve been given, and there are many who believe they will, this could very well be the catalyst that launches a meaningful third party in this country.

Until then, the hard truth is that the Republican Party offers the best vehicle to advance the conservative cause. Now there are exceptions to this rule, such as Mike Castle in Delaware or Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. The old guard GOP is quick to point out that the tea party cost the Republicans several seats in the Senate, pointing to these races.

Personally, I’m firmly in the Jim Demint (R-SC) camp, who said, “I’ve been in the majority with Republicans who didn’t have principles and we embarrassed ourselves and lost credibility in front of the country. Frankly, I’m at a point where I’d rather lose fighting for the right cause then win fighting for the wrong cause.”

Ultimately, we are no worse off with a Democrat Senator from Delaware than we would have been had Mike Castle been elected, just as we are no better off with the ‘so called’ Republican Murkowski in Alaska.

Which brings us back to the tea party. Surprisingly, there are still far too many tea partiers who stand by the principle that the movement should not endorse candidates. Make no mistake about it, this movement has changed the political landscape in America, however, if it is to remain a deciding factor, then we must learn from our experiences and apply that knowledge to future efforts.

By not endorsing candidates and, thereby, sitting out the primary, we are giving the Republican party a distinct advantage in choosing who will be the candidate. And, as we have seen time and again, the Party does not always choose the right candidate – pun intended. And for those who still buy into the idea that the Party does not ‘pick’ the candidates, you’re only fooling yourself.

Another valuable lesson from the 2010 Election is that the tea party must coalesce it’s efforts around a single candidate in the primary. There’s simply no way the tea party can compete with the political machine when it’s divided in it’s mission. Of course, that’s an easy decision to make when you have a Rand Paul in the group. If you don’t, your odds for success are greatly diminished.

Which brings us to the following article about recruiting, vetting and training candidates. Yet, what is the point if the tea party is then not going to support that candidate throughout the election process?

Should Tea Partiers Recruit, Vet and Train Candidates? Hint: They already are

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/26/should-tea-partiers-recruit-vet-and-train-candidates-hint-they-already-are

(One word of caution, the article quotes Tea Party Nation’s Judson Phillips extensively. Phillips is no more a spokesman for the tea party than you or me. He makes some good points, however, he also states that the “top three” Senate candidates lost, completely overlooking Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, which seriously questions his credibility. He also suggests that abortion be added to the tea party agenda, which is a very contentious topic that many will disagree with. Ultimately, electing true conservative candidates will advance the entire conservative agenda.)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    is quite simple.

    Inexperienced and/or poorly vetted TP backed candidates who bounced into primaries late – see Sharon Angle/Christine O’Donnell – and pulled off primary wins over incumbents who either didn’t bother to campaign or campaigned like the office was an entitlement won’t stand a chance next time out.

    John McCain drew the correct conclusion with JD Hayworth and it won’t be lost on incumbents next time around. McCain campaigned hard, didn’t have an attitude and spent about $20MM more than he needed to in the primary (he would have beaten JD if he’d stayed in DC for the whole primary) because he knew he wouldn’t have to spend any money in the general. He spent way less than a million given the last numbers I saw, and he won both in a walk.

    Murkowski lost the primary because of her entitlement attitude but correctly realized that the Unknown Dem was a big loser. She also had enough organization to make a write in against a poorly vetted, pretty unpopular guy work.

    Bottom line, if the TP is planning on primarying anybody in ’12 they’d better have a solid, experienced candidate, a solid organization and a good plan or they will get exactly no where.

    • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

      but endorsing candidates has it’s pitfalls as well which I witnessed here in Illinois first hand.

      I’m a Tea Party leader in S. Central Illinois. The Tea Parties in the Illinois Senate primary were divided between Pat Hughes, Don Lowery, and John Arrington. It didn’t help that it was a multi-candidate primary thereby making it harder for a unified front against Mark Kirk.

      Most Tea Parties got behind a candidate in the primary, and endorsed one candidate or another (none to my knowledge endorse Kirk) and therefore split the vote. Even if you took all the votes from the other candidates, they still didn’t add up to beating Kirk, but if it were a two way race (and a later primary), things might have been different.

      While I agree that the Tea Parties (agreeing with Socrates to always use the plural) need to endorse, they need to recruit most of all. In Illinois, our next chance at the Senate is 2014 against Dick Durbin, and for a multitude of reasons, the Governor’s seat is also up for grabs.

      Recruiting is paramount since I guarantee the GOP insiders have already started grooming their choice and I’ve already heard rumblings about their possible choices. The key is to find our candidate, and make it a two way race in the primary to prevent any vote splitting.

      Illinois is a bit of a different cookie. Qualified candidates who aren’t retread or also rans are hard to find and promote toward statewide office. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen though.

      • janshaw22

        Our Tea Party group considers itself to be Non-partisan. In my opinion that means pushing Both parties (Democrats & Republicans) and the electorate towards our principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. Now it is true that most Tea Party supporters went with Republicans in 2010 because the republican platform is more aligned with the Tea Party – but in 2012 it would be great to put in Tea Party challengers in both sets of primaries.

        As for the next year our main goals should be
        1. educating ourselves on the issues
        2. educating the public
        3. keeping congress on the right-path, and
        4. finding conservatives to challenge elected officials who have strayed from the founding principles.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          don’t you get.

          If you think for one second that the leadership of the Democratic Party is going to budge one iota from their socialist agenda, you’re a fool.

  • fpete13527
  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

    More than endorsing candidates, the Tea Parties should organize and publicize debates, and make sure they get on TV. Debates held by conservatives, with true interplay between candidates as in the Lincoln-Douglass debates, would do a great deal to counter the effect of the Democrat sponsored debates that give baby questions to progressives and trick questions to conservatives.

    In other words, Tea Parties should take the position that they are at the center of the American political landscape, not the vanguard of conservativism. Nothing will do this better than a principled adherence to the Constitution and common sense when it comes to finances, security policy, and morality.

    • aesthete
  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    conservative leadership in every local Republican Party committee, then in every county Republican Party committee, then in every state Republican Party committee, and then at the RNC level IF they had “rallied” inside their local Republican Party committee meetings and become precinct committeemen. THEN they’d be on the path of being able to, in the upcoming 2012 primary elections, make sure the BEST conservative candidates win those all-important, traditionally-very-low-turnout primary elections.

    1. To change things, we must change the laws.

    2. To change the laws, we must change the people who make the laws.

    3. To get elected, your candidate must be on the ballot.

    4. To get on the November ballot you must win the Primary.

    5. To win the Primary, you must get the support of people who make endorsements in the Primary, who reliably vote in the Primary, and who get out the vote of others in the Primary. Those people are the Precinct Committeemen.

    In Delaware in 2006, 8 per cent of registered Republicans voted in the primary election. Here in Arizona, turnout by registered Republicans in the primary election is usually less than twenty per cent.

    The most powerful way to impact incumbent congresscritters is to be able to make, truthfully, one of the two following statements when you communicate with them:

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    No tea-party backed candidates or initiatives (including many that were endorsed) were successful in Colorado. There really isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. What will work in some states will not work in others, and if groups can’t figure out the difference nothing’s going to change.