Ok I've been thinking about this off and on for the last couple of weeks. Starting out with a recent article attempting to give Tea party some olitical relevance:
Tea Party changes tone, but not outcome of Texas primary - CNN.com
(CNN) -- If this week's primary election in Texas is any indicator, incumbent Republicans can breathe a little easier.
Despite a handful of Tea Party challengers, all 11 of the incumbent House Republicans facing challengers came out on top.
In the lead-up to the election, James Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas, said he heard legislators asking each other, "You got a Tea Party challenger? I do."
Jerry Ray Hall, who challenged Rep. Ralph Hall, the oldest member of the House, actually added "Tea" to his name to emphasize his support for the ideas of the Tea Party.
<snip>
Although candidates associating themselves with the Tea Party didn't make waves in the primary, Henson said the movement did have a tangible effect.
" really affected the tenor of the campaign, but it doesn't seem to me that they materially affected a lot of outcomes," Henson said.
<snip>
State Rep. Tommy Merritt lost to activist David Simpson. Merritt has represented District 7 since 1997. Longtime State Rep. Delwin Jones was unable to get enough votes to lock in his bid and will face Tea Party activist Charles Perry in a runoff next month.
Phillip Dennis, founder of the Dallas Tea Party, said that despite the results, he didn't consider the election a loss for the movement.
"We think it was a tremendous success and we take a lot of credit for that," Dennis said, pointing to the high voter turnout.
Turnout this year was at about 16.6 percent of registered voters, according to the Texas Secretary of State's office. With 1.4 million Republicans voting, it set a new record for the Republican gubernatorial primary.
<snip>
"We feel that we can hold politicians' feet to the fire with this organization and we do," Dennis said. The Tea Party movement, he said, "has awakened the tax paying, middle-class, sleeping conservative giant."
<snip>
When trying to determine the impact the movement might have in upcoming elections, Stu Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, said it's difficult to gauge.
"One of the problems in evaluating the Tea Party movement as a movement is that people use the term differently to mean different things," he said.
<snip>
But Tea Party aside, this year's midterm elections are shaping up to be competitive. Rothenberg said that 74 House races are currently considered competitive, higher than in previous years.
" control seats that under normal circumstances they wouldn't, so there are all these Democratic opportunities that Republicans can recruit on," he said.
"When you look over the past half-dozen elections, we're getting more candidates, and really it's mostly coming from the Republican side of the aisle. There are just a lot of districts that they can compete in."
CNN's Peter Hamby contributed to this report.
I have a theory regarding Tea party role in US politics. We all know it's not a grass roots movment. Too much research and documentation of leaders and funding has shown otherwise. It's concoted, devised and manufactured by some heavy political hitters.
The Tea party was never devised to actually be a major player in the political arena. The purpose of the Tea Party is to make the Republican look Moderate. Tea party members are simply duped into participating in a political gamble.
Bare with me here. People tend to think in a linear fashion. Putting political parties on a linear spectrum of conservative to liberal. People tend to think in nice neat packaged terms.
Tea Party>-----------<Republicans>-----------<Democrats
See how nice and tidy? It make the Reps look like they are moderate, in the middle, not nearly so bigoted, self righteous or moralistically hypicritical lol.
There is a gamble going on here. That the Tea Party will attract less new members (as a fringe outfit normally is wont to do), as the Reps may gain by being thought of as being so moderate. That also puts Dems on the fringe....Conservative Democrats feeling they are as fringy as Tea Party members may gravitate to what appear to be more moderate.
This is what I think is happening.
So putting this in perspective with the article: This article, attemps to confirm public sentiment regarding the relatively new direction of the Tea Party, rather than add acrtual substance. Tea party is still finding it's footing on a gravely slope. After making a hard lined stances, members who really feel they want to legitimize the Party will find they can only be significantly relevant if they become a 'possible' major player. That means including thoughts/political stance of a potential majority. Just like the Dems and the Reps are attempting to do. Sometimes being considered on the 'fringe' puts them in such a non-relevent/submissive role, it gets frustating and they will realize it's no way to press an agenda.
So....the Reps have created a monster that will morph and grow on it's own. We have two forces at work with the Tea party.
1. The growing number of Tea Party members that will seek relevance, maneuiver the Party in an independent less fringy direction, and
2. The creators of the Party that merely want them to remain a wing-nut fringe to bolster the image of the Republicans.
Here's how I see thigs morphing over the next few years. The Tea Party will initially make the Reps look good, but as they continue to search for relevance, they will actually move closer to the Reps...practically indistinguishable. They can only have the effect of the wing-nut right reputation rubbing off on the party viewed as barely right of center....at least that is what I hope happens because the alternative, that the Tea Party will make the Reps look totally Centrist, and very popoular in the long term, is aggravating the heck out of me.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
