The Romney-fication of the Tea Party
Romney is the type of candidate the Tea Party voter had come to loathe by 2008 and became dedicated to defeating in 2010 and in the future: a career politician concerned more with election than ideology. Romney is a glib, flip-flopping politician, as much of a feckless empty suit as there ever has been in American presidential politics. He struggles to recite conservative boilerplate talking points, but is as smooth when defending his disaster, Romneycare. When Romney has to defend conservatism, his “poker tell” stutter shows up.
Case in point: most supporters indicate Romney's strongest attribute is electability. What does that even mean? Who isn't electable? Charles Manson? O.J.? Barack Obama was electable. Henry Waxman was electable, Maxine Waters was electable, even Nancy Pelosi was electable. When people voted for Obama in 2008, most had no idea what he believed; when they found out, they abandoned him for the integrity of the Tea Party. Will the Tea Party become so dedicated to “electability” that it abandons its defining attributes, even after the 2010 victory proved conservative ideas can win when voters have a real chance to vote for them?
Romney presents two dangers. One is an Obama reelection; the other is the Tea Party surrendering its ideals, perhaps a bigger danger as the movement is the last best hope for America to remain the protector of freedom in the world.
I beg Tea Party members to not commit organizational suicide -- Tea Party suicide will lead to the death of the Republic.