Tea Party Patriots release statement against third party


A lot of talk has been floating around regarding the third party route for the movement in 2010. A poll we launched a few months back had almost 5,000 votes, and suggested that a whopping 50% believe the Republican Party is the proper vessel for us this year.

Many have disagreed, however, making for some interesting debate happening within the comments here at TaxDayTeaParty.com.

To make matters more interesting, Tea Party Patriots, probably the largest issue advocacy arm of the tea party movement, released the following statement this morning.

There is much talk of the formation of a third political party based on the tea party movement. In Florida, a Democratic operative with absolutely no connection to the tea party movement has filed papers to form a third party called the Florida Tea Party. He has issued legal threats against local tea parties demanding that they cease using the name “Florida Tea Party.”

Tea Party Patriots is issuing this statement in order to make it clear that we are not associated with this, or any attempts to form a third party. Additionally, we believe that such efforts are unproductive and unwise at this time. The history of third party movements in this country is one of division and defeat. We believe that it is instead time for all Americans to rise up and demand appropriate reform within their own parties. The mechanisms exist for citizens to participate in their parties, and to drive their parties in the right direction.

The Tea Party Patriots encourage all citizens to get involved in the party process, and to reshape their parties into something in which they may once again believe. This country does not belong to any one party, nor does it belong to the career politicians. This country belongs to the citizens. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “We have given you a republic madam, if you can keep it.” The founders knew that it would be our sacred obligation as citizens to get involved, and to work hard to hold on to this great nation. We have much work to do, and future generations will look back in judgment. We hope you will join us in preserving the republic.

Is this another sign that more groups and organizations are starting to take an aggressive stance against the third party option?

125 Responses to “Tea Party Patriots release statement against third party”

  1. Tami Kilmarx says:

    I will post this here as there appears no where a more appropriate place. I must warn you also of the move to abscond with the grass roots movement that is tea party, here in Tenn and throughout the rest of the country by way of the National Convention. Every county tea party org here in Tenn has virtually been thrown out of the org that calls itself TPN…and none of us will have anything to do with this Convention, even if we could. We have formed a coalition here that will be meeting in caucus Jan 23 and we will not support this effort of TPNs. Members are being thrown out weekly from their social networking site and no communication is being had between us and them. Palin and the others are not coming to an event that is grassroots…they are coming to something that is misrepresenting itself and has fashioned itself as “the leader” of the movement. If you doubt this, contact us…I can give you a list of hundreds of individuals and dozens of groups who will back me on this. I warn you folks, there are those who are misrepresenting themselves and the rest of us in the grass roots by way of this Convention. And Palin thinks she is coming to support the movement? She has been misled. The $$$s involved in this fiasco is enough to beg questions. I can answer those for you, having been on the inside of this thing since early last year.

  2. Publius says:

    @Steve, as I’ve mentioned to you guys before, why don’t you try to establish some real clarity for yourselves by conducting a nationwide poll of the TP movement [online] to determine what people think, rather than guessing and doing things just as half-ass as the republicans. It’s not rocket science.

  3. John S. says:

    If the tea party is willing to actually bring change to this country then back Peter Schiff.

  4. Thasic says:

    I realize a third party has almost always been a sure loser. Of course the Republican Party and the Democratic party were both third parties at one time, so third parties can work.

    My problem with suporting either the Dems or the Reps is that neither supports me. I am a conservative with some liberal social beliefs and some Libertarian beliefs as well. Let’s face it, the big two parties are both about personal and government power. They don’t give a hoot about us.

    So, where does that leave me? I’m not sure but I do know I WILL NOT support another member of the elite class that rules Washington now. I would rather vote my beliefs and lose or not vote at all.

  5. Steve says:

    I was hoping that Publius would actually offer an option rather than continously slamming other offers. Guess thats what I get for conversing with him/her again.
    @Coriann “If you fail to vote for the lesser of two evils you get the greater” this may be true, however you still end up with evil and at some point you will be FORCED to stand for principle or obey the evil.

  6. Thom S. says:

    For those who want to stop the current dramatic turn towards more big government the most intelligent thing a third party might decide in many elections is not to run. Some candidates who are supported in 2010, might not be in 2012 when there is more time for other candidates to prepare.

    I think the Tea Party has already realized this in Massachusetts. There is a time and place to put forward and support third party candidates and it is undeniable that making the wrong decision in elections that do not specifically have rules set up for third party races, will help elect the candidate most opposite of the third party candidate.

  7. Bill Paine says:

    This movement is already riddled with cowards, sellouts, and Republican panderers.

    Who has the guts to start something new, and who will keep slobbering after the established parties?

    This issue will define the Tea Party movement. Anything less than a clean slate is treason.

  8. Thom S. says:

    To respond to several comments below:

    There is not an existing third party that IMHO would be supported by 50% of the population in most areas. The existing political parties have two challenges.

    First many of them embrace too many different issues. Some that people would embrace, some that tend to repel large numbers of people. I can go to most of the existing third parties and find many things I agree with. But all of them also have things I oppose to the point I could not support such a platform.

    So if one were really going to form a new party, the key is to keep it simple and focused. Let each candidate address the many issues of concern to voters, but the platform needs to be simpler.

    This is an area where the Tea Party Protests have an edge. They are attracting a lot of people from many parties and Independents who all share one common goal. A smaller federal government, with less money, power and control, centered in D.C.

    To those talking of 3rd Party Presidential candidates in 2012 I would say that nothing is impossible, but if a group were really serious about taking that office the logical process, the way our system is designed, is to build first at the Congressional level. The intention being to overwhelm another party by drawing away enough voters and building a group of candidates with experience in Congress in such a new party. Such a process would logically take 6 to 10 years to build enough momentum that one of the other two parties would in fact become the third party or at least weak enough for the new party to have popular respect. During this period, issues that hamper a third party could be address, as well as ballot challenges to third parties.

    Trying to start a third party first with the office of President and one or two charismatic leaders is very likely to destroy the effort, but not always.

    As far as the comments of “joining the Republican Party”: First it is clear that the potential of a New Party created less than a year before an election gaining 51 Senate seats and 218 House seats is fundamentally impossible.

    Thus, realizing forming a new party with substantial control is a decade long effort even in the best of circumstances, it is understood that there are more existing Republicans willing to support most of the key provisions that unite Tea Partiers. New candidates who might be defined more as Tea Partiers than old guard Republicans can still enter Republican primaries, win and run against tax and spend incumbents.

    If one really wanted to create a new party and supplant an existing one, this is in fact the most logical path. While part of the effort uses the mechanisms of the existing parties to gain office, the other mechanism can build necessary long term third party mechanisms from the outside.

    The advantage of this is these new third party mechanisms would keep the major parties in check, whether it remains 2 or is three.

    A few parties that are main stream enough to actually elect candidates would actually be very useful to keep the major parties from leaning towards their extreme ends.

    As well our current system without term limits concentrates a lot of power in politicians elected before many voters were born. It really explains why Congress acts in ways so out of touch with most Americans. They have been out of touch with main stream America for so long they simply can’t grasp basic fundamental common sense every day things. How on earth can they grasp the bigger issues.

    Remarkably at least 76 House members and 25 Senators were first elected before some 2009 voters were born. These are often those with the most power.

    It is clear any of the potential efforts will take great leadership, leadership that is divergent from the typical pop star, individual centric manifestations we see so commonly today.

    The question is, can the average populous educate themselves enough on what will realistically work, what is fundamentally sound, and support long term plans for positive change that respects both the principles of the constitution, and all that we have learned since then as to what can allow both fairness and a healthy free market system.

    We will clearly have charismatic leaders, the question is will we have the kind of leaders who can think beyond today.

  9. Fed up says:

    Eyes wide open makes an excellent point. Aligning with either party makes this group pointless. If we auto align our votes to the Pubs we give up our voice to their agenda.
    It worries me that the Tea Party is being directed and steered by Republican operatives. The same way Rush, Fox, etc. spew the daily talking points.

  10. Publius says:

    I see no rationale for Badnarik, since he is a virtual unknown. And since Ron Paul is seen as being too obscure a candidate by the GOP and MSM, I’d avoid him as well.

    The faulty assumption that you’re making, like the republicans and everyone else, is the notion that a sound theory is synonymous with sound strategy; it is not.

    If it were as simple as finding someone who is a serious libertarian with full support for the constitution, etc., then anyone would be able to run for public office and win.

    Life is not so simple.

  11. CORIANN says:

    Thanks to those of us who understand that it’s still really a two-handed game and if we can’t get mr/ms perfect conservative in there, we need to unite behind a pretty good one instead of puristically wasting our votes on a wonderful martyr. If you fail to vote for the lesser of two evils you get the greater. Let’s just push our best people thru the GOP caucuses and conventions and primaries and then unite in the generals. We’ll see a landslide and start restoring the constitution.

    Luv ya. Coriann

  12. Steve says:

    If President of the Continental Congress 09 Michael Badnarik were not deathly ill (or if he makes a great recovery) maybe he as a VP and Ron Paul as Pres for a ticket in 2012. Any suggestions Publius?

  13. Publius says:

    ‘Eyes Wide Open’ makes a great point that I’ve just brought up on Eric’s latest err, posting, re- involving republicans like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann into the mix; where’s the strategy?

    Surely they don’t think that by merely pursuing the same ad hoc strategy for the past year that somehow the TP movement is going to magically come out on top, and certainly not with such a scathing review of her in the new book ‘Game Change’?

    This is why the TP movement needs credible leadership.

  14. Eyes Wide Open says:

    If the tea party aligns with the Rep party it will be the end of the group as being meaningful in American politics. Did you happen to notice what the Bush Admin did.

    What democratic member in the house or Senate would you back? Or Republican for that matter.

    So you could push someone new where a Dem is the incumbent and what would you do if a republican is in office. Fight the party you say you are going to align with. Guess you saw what the Reps did on that defense bill.

    What about states like PA where you have to be registered with the party to vote for a candidate. Independents are left out of the process.

    I think any candidate you will fine supportable is essentially going to be outside of both parties anyway. Why not tap into the libertarian or constitutional party?

    If the group goes Republican it will be viewed as just another branch of that party and I think that others will feel as I do that I cannot buy into that party. I was a life long democrat and do not see them as matching my view anymore but switching to them is like asking a condemned man if he would prefer to be shot with a 30 or 40 caliber gun.

  15. Liberty_Activist says:

    Steve, Fed, and Thom…Amen you all of you. Ultimately a third party is viable and desirable. Thom’s analysis is sound.


  16. Mrethiopian says:

    10 Years ago I would have said the addition of a third party would be ludicrous, but now a days with the both the democrats and republicans look to be the same party bent on destroying this once great country. Yes we America are in desperate need change and our only hope of the drastic positive change needed was thrown out in favor of the looser team McCain and little miss quitter brain dead. I voted for Ron Paul I the primaries and will once again vote for this great man in 2012, Ron Paul is our only hope nay other candidate will be four more years stuck in limbo whilst what little is left of America is bought by China or crumbles to dust from lack of proper infrastructure funding.

    In this entire TP site dedicated to stopping any new tax increases, I see no mention of stopping the useless wars that are and have taken this country from surplus to bankruptcy in 9 years, you want no new taxes, then spending should be stopped across to board, non-partisan Democratic and Republican both need to be fiscally responsible, if healthcare and the wars are our two biggest money holes, then both should be stopped tomorrow. Till our government can prove that the debt clock can start counting down then other programs will need to be cut, again across the board, our bloated government could start with disbanding no ridicules fatherland security, I could go on and on with all the BS that has been killing the once great country for the last 10 years all in the name of freedom, what a farce!!!

  17. Steve says:

    Fed and Thom,
    Amen to that!

  18. Fed up says:

    If this should be about reforming the Republican party than where were you all when they dragged us into the mud for the last 8 years. I am ashamed to say I ever was a part of that party.
    Anyone thinking only the Dems are to blame need to leave now and talk to their party. This movement is about the citizens, not some power structure sponsored by corporate.
    It looks like the Repug’s are doing their best to steer this group into their party. No thanks! They are half the problem.

  19. Thom S. says:

    To amend my earlier comments on “Two Round Voting Systems” there actually seem to be 8 states with some form of Two Round system and Run-off elections.

    North Carolina
    South Carolina

    As well there seems to be a surge of municipalities implementing IRV (Instant Runoff Voting)

    Google: IRV a Hit in Twin Cities for the Huffington Post article on the state of Minnesota potentially implementing IRV at the state level.

    Also look at:
    “Who Uses IRV?”
    For a list of those implementing this system that is friendly to third party candidates running.

    So clearly there are many voting districts where it makes sense to run as a third party.

    However to have an impact on the 2010 elections clearly many will have to work through the Republican or Democrat Parties. Clearly a decision will have to be made on a district by district basis as to whether a third party run will make sense.

    There is no one solution that will solve the current problem we have with party bosses and the politics of both the Republican and Democrat parties that is out of touch with large numbers of Americans.

    We need to consider third parties as a way create long term change, but realize that most short term change will have to happen within the existing powerful two parties. Changes like implementing IRV or Two Round systems will take time, if there is support for this concept.

    The quick dismissal of third party options clearly makes it seem this is more of a Republican Party effort to many.

  20. Steve says:

    While this sounds good on theory it does not answer some fundamental questions. 1. Is it more difficult to get on a ballot through the two party ticket or a third party ticket. Answer- usually much more difficult to get on a ballot through a third party. So, maybe these candidates are going the “extra mile” because they stand on principle.
    2. Who decides who gets the support on one of the two parties tickets? Answer- the power structure that is in place. I think that is what most of the TP people are tired of. Once again it boils down to knowing what questions to ask (vetting) any candidate regardless of party affiliation. If you do not understand the Constitution then vetting will be of no use.
    One more thing, why was my previous comment posted twice as I was not on my computer at the time it was posted? Eric, any answers from you to any of this?

  21. Steve says:

    So does anyone else have anything on the two party system worth talking about?

  22. Tom Stark says:


    Your suggestion (locations and vetting of good conservative candidates) is exactly what the Independence Caucus is all about and they need as many sensible members as they can get in order to move forward with their efforts. Go to http://www.ourcaucus.com for a complete explanation of the twelve principles we support. The last thing in the world we need is a third party to dilute the base. Good candidates are definitely the right solution for all of us. This group, in fact, will not vet anyone who is running on a third party ticket because we do not believe they are electable and therefore are pretty much a waste of time to vet. If they believe in what they are doing they will run in a primary and try to gain the major party nomination.

  23. Publius says:

    @Steve, I fully understand your way of thinking, and it still leads me back to the same conclusion as before: clueless.

  24. Steve says:

    Publius, if you cannot see that it MUST be a mixture of the Consitution and marketing you are missing the point entirely. Please go back read it and then try to apply it because appartently you have done neither. The biggest problem we (the TP movement) face is the fact that most people, including you, just feel that something is wrong. However, there is no understanding of the violations to the Constitution and the remedies that we have to restore it. There is no one way or quick way to restore the republic. Please see the Articles of Freedom at http://cc2009.us/aof. Then come and “talk” to me if you are able to in a cordial manner.

  25. Spiking says:

    And here’s a follow-up question:

    What if Pakistan is developing suitcase nuclear weapons?

    Or stealing them on the black market?

  26. Spiking says:

    Saw an article the other day. It was wondering if the Tea Party was for or against the war in Afghanistan.

    I can’t help but feel for those mothers and fathers who lost a child there.

    My question is, are we at war with Pakistan?

  27. Spiking says:

    Publius says:
    January 11, 2010 at 3:50 am
    @Spiking Having people like you around just waters it down
    Thanks for the kind words.

    The fascists and the communists will be voted down in 295 days.

    For the love of all that is good in this world, I hope they sign taxpayer approval of spending into law.

  28. Publius says:

    Oh, forgot to mention, you’ll not get much more than what I’ve given you so far, Steve. Me giving you good ideas would have to be earned through respect, something that you’ll likely never accomplish on your own.

  29. Publius says:

    @Spiking and Steve (same person)–you’re apples and oranges analysis mixing marketing and legal/constitutional issues together continue to be as coherent and concise as the rest of the tea party movement, and, I might add, another great reason why it needs credible leadership to guide it. Having people like you around just waters it down and keeps it mediocre.


  30. Spiking says:

    Steve says:
    January 11, 2010 at 2:45 am
    We are a republic which is rule of law it is right not might.
    Our country was founded on military revolution. Fortunately, I do not believe that Americans are THAT angry.

    I believe that Americans DO want a new law: taxpayer approval of spending.

    If the fascists and the communists want 295 more days of power, so be it.

    We’ll be waiting for them Nov 2.

  31. Steve says:

    Publius, It is certain that you think highly of your intelectual abilities and as such I would suggest that you please put forth your plan of action. If part of that plan is as you said earlier to “poll” the TP movement to see what they want you are clearly falling for the same line that spiking is by falling for the old “give the people what they want” thats called democracy. We are a republic which is rule of law it is right not might. You may suggest that it wont sell, well to damn bad! I will do what is right and no more. There are already many parties out there and as such I would agree there is no reason to change the TP movement in to a political party. It is not about parties or movements it is about the law and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution for the united States (you might try reading it sometime). The bottom line is this when a candidate says I support limited govt and fiscal responsibility you better demand that he explains what that means. If you do not understand economics and moral truths you will continue to be misguided into many things like, fiat money, Stare decisis, Surpeme court Standing, term limits, voter ballot initiatives, and two party systems. You have demonstrated your ignorance many times here and I for one believe you to be a plant. I am not an IT guy nor am I spiking. Maybe its time you put away the keyboard and mouse and pickup a book. Educate yourself please!

  32. Michael says:

    I personally support a multi-party system, however the process of getting a “third-party” on a voting ballot is a very tedious process. I highly encourage you to look at the libertarians efforts in 2008. Many local jurisdictions make it very difficult for a party other than the Dems or Reps to be on the ballot.

    If there were to truly be another effective party, you will have to win it, one district at a time, on the state level first, in order to make entry on national election ballots easier.

    Shooting straight at the National elections (IE the presidential race) doesn’t really seem to speak to “Grass Roots” either. If you want to make a real difference in the world, run for your local school board, and change the way education works in this country.

    I live in Virginia, and in the last general election, in MOST (and I mean upwards of 60%) state congressional districts, the incumbent ran UNOPPOSED. As you can see, there is a huge gap that could be filled with much less capital, and more effective on every day life.

  33. Thom S. says:

    A Third Party clearly makes sense at this time in two states, Georgia and Louisiana.

    Both employ a “Two-round Voting System” that requires a run-off election if none of the candidates receives 50% of the vote. As election rules are determined at the state level, each state has the ability to change its voting rules to allow for third parties in congressional elections.

    Georgia for example became a tough race in 2008 for Chambliss but interestingly his initial 3% lead jumped to 15% in the run-off with the potential his loss would give the Democrats the 60 member super majority.

    This was a big and important win until another seat was overturned in Franken’s favor.

    So I ask the questions to this group?

    1. Would you be supportive of a Third Party in Georgia and Louisiana?

    2. Would you be supportive of Third Party candidates in other states for districts where the major parties think it is hopeless to overturn incumbent politicians?

    and probably most importantly:

    3. In states other than GA/LA would you support a change in your voting rules that would make it viable for Third Party candidates to run without as much threat of being a spoiler?

    Specifically an effort to change to a Two-round voting system like that of GA/LA or a similar and less expensive system called an Instant-runoff Voting system (IRV).

    Georgia Runoff Election:
    Two-Round System
    Plurality Voting System

  34. Spiking says:

    Oh, and one other thought. We may want to organize protests calling for taxpayer approval of spending.

    Unless that would interfere with your job.

    We have a solution to the problem right here, right now.

    And Congress is spitting in our faces. That’s pretty hard to take.

  35. DUinFL says:

    The presumption that the Tea Party movement should be part of the Republican Party is a mistake. There are just as many Democrats’ who are frustrated by how are government is no longer in control of it’s citizens. If we allow ourselves to be a tool of Republican politicians, we’ve sold our soul to the devil. Because in our current political environment we don’t have a choice between good and evil, just between bad and bad.

  36. Spiking says:

    Maggie In Indiana says:
    January 10, 2010 at 2:05 pm
    It is not a third party we need it is the caliber of candidates we recruit that will win back our country.
    I don’t mean to be flip here.

    But the Democrats have no problem sending all of us to the poor house. They are essentially communists.

    Arguably, Republicans are fascists.

    So we can sit around sorta kinda hoping that the commies and the fascists cancel each other out.

    Or we can get a law into place that will give us control of our country again.

    The communists aren’t proposing that law, and neither are the fascists.

    I’m prepared to donate money to get taxpayer approval of spending. And if I am the best candidate, I will run for office.

    But I’m not going to do it alone. We need 435 people who will run on taxpayer approval of spending. And we need the funding to support them.

    I’ve been here for a week, and no one has offered better ideas.

    I understand the support for the general concept of “limited government.”

    But you’re not going to win the House on that. And it’s not going to change anything.

  37. Publius says:

    @Spiking–nowhere in the Rasmussen poll
    is there an indication that voters want voter-approved spending. It’s pure speculation on your part, and a ridiculous idea that won’t get the time of day from anyone. Your misinterpretations are a further indication that you have no knowledge or insights on polling data, and obviously no real understanding of politics in general.

    And Thom is correct when he suggests that your idea would push us more into being a democracy rather than a republic. The best part about all of this is that you fail to see the damage that a democracy can cause, especially if people were to support ideas that would run counter to yours. Wake up.

  38. It is not a third party we need it is the caliber of candidates we recruit that will win back our country. I believe this with all my heart. Strength in numbers is what has made the tea Party movement what it is. We found each other,now lets “help” recruit the candidates that can win and restore our founders plan to make America the last best hope.

  39. Spiking says:

    Thom S. says:
    January 10, 2010 at 11:12 am
    @Spiking “taxpayer approval of spending” sounds like an effort to move away from being a Republic towards a pure Democracy. I really don’t think that is a popular enough position to win elections and is not something I would vote for or support.

    I am really not clear of what you are suggesting. Is there a detail of your plan somewhere?

    Please provide a link as this detail is clearly away from the topic of: “TPP Release Statement Against Third Party”
    Oh, it’s not off-topic. There are 296 days (I was off a day earlier) until midterms.

    A successful third party needs a hot, sexy idea to rally around. And quick!

    I really wish that I had a directly related poll to share with you. But I don’t. Here’s an indirect one:


    There are very few Americans willing to let Congress spend us into oblivion.

    I’m not talking about pure democracy. I’m talking about specific, targeted voting that will hold Congress accountable.

    Every second Republicans don’t act costs the good American people money.

    Do you think there are 435 people in this country who would run for the House? Promising to give the good American people a vote on any spending that they want to do?

    How much money would it take to get 435 people to run on this “platform”?

  40. Publius says:

    @Thom, Spiking (Steve) is talking out of his ass; he’s just another amateur with a one-dimensional mind and no clue about the nature of politics, the media, or marketing.

    Neither the tea party movement OR the republicans are going to win back a majority in the House, simply because they haven’t proven themselves ready to lead or worthy of enough respect to pull it off.

    If all they continually do is nothing more than rant and rave about is how bad the other side is, they’ll have accomplished nothing by November. They need real leadership to pull it off.

  41. Thom S. says:

    @Spiking “taxpayer approval of spending” sounds like an effort to move away from being a Republic towards a pure Democracy. I really don’t think that is a popular enough position to win elections and is not something I would vote for or support.

    I am really not clear of what you are suggesting. Is there a detail of your plan somewhere?

    Please provide a link as this detail is clearly away from the topic of: “TPP Release Statement Against Third Party”

  42. Spiking says:

    Publius says:
    January 9, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    no one seems to know how to implement it,
    You’re not even trying.

    Two year “default” decisions could be made when you vote in person. You could override them later for individual votes.

  43. Spiking says:

    Thom S. says:
    January 9, 2010 at 7:41 pm
    Conventional wisdom has long said no one can win against the big two.
    297 days remain before the next House of Representatives is chosen.

    At some point, Eric, Palin, Steele, McCain, Armey, and Gingrich will make a decision.

    The “right-wing” version of the Tea Party will stand for taxpayer approval of spending. Or it will stand for “limited government.” There’s simply no time for other choices.

    I predict that the “limited government” direction will fail miserably.

    The center will pursue taxpayer approval of spending.

    I’ll pursue it here, as long as Eric is comfortable with that.

    As soon as he’s not, I’ll go back to USA Today comments, and re-evaluate. But the issue is not going away.

    I predict that Beck will side with taxpayer approval of spending. And he’s the most powerful man in America.

  44. Thom S. says:

    @Publius, Conventional wisdom has long said no one can win against the big two. Today I think their are a lot of local organizations who think otherwise especially with respect to House seats. These can be won with local organizations. If 10 Reps get elected with the help of ten different Tea Party organizations, they still have the potential to unite and define such a new party. It need not be such a top down orchestrated mechanism, in fact it might be better if it is not.

  45. Spiking says:

    Thom S. says:
    January 9, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Only if the Republican and Democratic Parties fear the rise of a moderate party do they really have to fundamentally change or risk their power withering.
    Thom, the moderate party has arrived. It is taxpayer approval of spending.

    We have seen the dawn of a new era in America.

    Not that the old eras were bad, by any means.

    But this one will be better.

    You up for 32 hour work weeks?

  46. Spiking says:

    Publius says:
    January 9, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Spiking, you’re showing me that you haven’t done your homework. The movement HAS spoken to what they want as their winning issue: limited government.
    Personally, I believe Eric, Palin, Steele, McCain, Armey, Gingrich and others will do what is best for this country.

    You, I’m not so sure of.

    You appear to have missed about 80% of the movement, so far.

    That’s too bad.

  47. Publius says:

    @Thom, the Tea Party movement lacks an effective infrastructure to help move it from a point of critical mass into a viable, long-term force of liberty, and to help it better focus and coordinate local and national efforts.

    At the core of that conundrum is a skills deficit, starting with a lack of analytical prowess. They have none, don’t know the difference between a goal and a strategy or an objective, so they merely pretend, and are simply engaging in ad hoc approaches and making things up as they go along.

    Promoting rallies isn’t a terribly difficult thing to do if you have the means to do it with. Anyone can do it, as demonstrated thus far. The problem is with taking it to the next level.

    Without the right people at the helm, this is as far as it will go. If people want it to go further, they have to want and demand better leadership. If they think that what they have now is all they need, they’re going to be terribly disappointed.

    End of story.

  48. Publius says:

    Spiking, you’re showing me that you haven’t done your homework. The movement HAS spoken to what they want as their winning issue: limited government.

    No where in this context has there been a central theme of taxpayer approved spending, except to the tune of voting out people who want to raise taxes. That’s it. So give it a rest. Your idea is a non-starter, since no one seems to know how to implement it, how to predict if it would work for us, or against us. Not everyone is a libertarian or a republican who would be voting, so you’d have people in many parts of the country voting FOR more spending if they can get the gov’t to give them things, like free healthcare, etc.


  49. Thom S. says:

    Across the Tea Party spectrum I see several different factions, that clearly would be better represented by about three different parties. The existing group of protesters are likely never to agree on a platform that would actually change much in our political system.

    If this is simply a movement to make the Republican Party better and stronger, fine, but I really don’t think such will solve most of our long term problems festering in our Republic.

    Only if the Republican and Democratic Parties fear the rise of a moderate party do they really have to fundamentally change or risk their power withering. Otherwise they will simply absorb the effort and keep going.

    As well, our system is set up to allow a party to form and grow at the congressional level, but discourage the forming of a new party at the Presidential level. I personally feel this is a good thing. If such a party grows at the expense of one of the others, clearly the opportunity rises to put forth a Presidential candidate. To do so in haste has proven to encourage the election of a candidate opposite of their principles.

    While we might be frustrated with the corrupt nature of our existing two parties, a new party formed hastily, without great care and thought, or led by one charismatic person seeking to head the executive branch, is likely to cause more chaos than balance. More disruption than improvement.

    Thus, the Tea Party Movement, while it might throw around its energy to exert power and influence over the existing parties and effect improvement, is more likely to be treated as a pest to be marginalized, than a clear long term threat to institutionalized power.

    To mix the protest reform movements, which are a healthy part of our republican form of government, with the delicate process of forming a new party will clearly cause many problems and confrontations.

    I feel both are valid, and important, but should clearly be separated. Those who try to corral the energy of general protest and anger at the whole political system into narrow political gain will likely destroy the most important aspects of the movement.

    For some this is clearly the goal. The Democrats see the early movement as something that united moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents, clearly something they want to discourage and marginalize as this is their most important voting base. As well the Republicans see that much of this group is rooted in fiscal conservatism, which seems to be a lost art as the Republicans have focused on social conservatism. They clearly see the possibility of being replaced completely by such a new entity.

    We are at a precipitous time in history. If we falter and flounder as a country there is no guarantee we will remain a strong voice for freedom around the world.

    We must look to what works within our current system, not try to reinvent whole scale overnight. Trying to change too much too fast only encourages anarchy. Building on what we know works and is fair but correcting that which has deviated from sound principles is the path.

    As such it is less exciting, less dramatic, and less likely to be led by a charismatic leader than by those who have taken the time to educate themselves on history and can define a strategic but rational path towards correction and improvement.

    Americans can express their rights as free individuals through protest and can have a positive impact, but history has proven that when the less charismatic but thoughtful few gather to define something better, there is much possibility. There are organizers, thinkers, dreamers, writers, rabble-rousers, founders, and leaders. The art is to support the right ones at the right time and to be cautious of those who try to be all these things.

  50. Spiking says:

    Publius says:
    January 9, 2010 at 10:42 am
    @Duane, factually speaking, the movement has people who have assumed leadership positions, so the argument that we don’t need leaders is moot.
    Are you still on this, Publius?

    The movement needs a winning issue. I firmly believe that issue is taxpayer approval of spending.

    Anyone with a voice and fingers is a potential leader. Talk to the American people about taxpayer approval of spending.

    Do they agree?

    If they disagree, what are their objections?

    Millions of Americans are leading the charge.

Leave a Reply

Paid for by Liberty First PAC
Not endorsed by any candidate or campaign committee
E-mail It