Two takes on the TEA Party

Erick Erickson writes that Everything You Heard Last Night Was Bull:

... while the Romney camp wants you to believe a win is a win, Romney got less votes in 2012 than he got in 2008. In addition, everything you heard last night from the professional class of political pundit was bull crap.

The political press and pundits have gotten so used to standard narratives that they cannot deviate from the mean even when it becomes grossly dislocated from reality.

Erickson's theory is that the Republican party is in such disarray "because George W. Bush failed to have a successor."  That's way too far in the wonk-weeds for me, but I'm sure it's interesting if you're a lifelong Republican.

As for the rest, Erickson sees Newt going "Newtlear" against Romney and urges Perry to "make it an Alamo stand" in South Carolina:

Additionally, anyone who says “this was a victory for retail politics” should be beaten with an Iowan cattle prod. Rick Santorum’s “victory” — and it was a victory in every sense but those 8 votes — was because he has run one of the most God awful disastrous retail campaign operations of any candidate with enough popularity to get on the debate stage.

Santorum visited all 99 Iowan counties, some of them repeatedly. His “successful” campaign never, ever caught on with Iowa voters despite all that retail time in Iowa. It only became successful when ever single other candidate had been vetted and imploded and there was absolutely no other person familiar to the voters who could stand as the non-Romney candidate.

Had Santorum run a successful retail campaign and caught fire on his own accord, he’d have been vetted by now and probably also succumbed to the Romney machine. His campaign was not successful, it’s just all the others sucked so bad.

And now that leads me to Bachmann and Perry. Bachmann, the Iowa native, won not a single county. Even Rick Perry won two counties. Bachmann must drop out. Frankly, it makes sense for Perry to do so as well except for one issue.

If Rick Perry drops out of the race it will be the ultimate failure of the tea party movement to see the race come down to two or three big government conservatives. Romney and Santorum both hide behind compassionate conservatism to expand the state to suit their purposes. Only Rick Perry has run a campaign to make Washington “as inconsequential to our lives as possible.”

If I were Perry, I’d wake up tomorrow, say I refuse to surrender the Republican Party into the hands of big government conservatives after all the gains the tea party has made, and then announce I’m firing all my political staffers and communications staffers and ask South Carolina to help me reboot to victory. Make it an Alamo stand and, if like at the Alamo Perry goes down, perhaps there’ll at least be a rallying cry for small government conservatism left over.

That’s just me. Perry’s policy people have been phenomenal. The comms staff and political staff so badly bungled this that Rick Perry just suffered the first political loss of his career.

Don’t count on it happening though.

As you wake up this morning, the tea party has failed because it has surrendered itself into the hands of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich — all of whom would use government to suit allegedly conservative ends, which is not conservative in and of itself. But by God Mitt Romney may now get the political beating everyone has been expecting him to get. Newt Gingrich has nothing left to lose. He can go Newtlear against the guy he sees as having destroyed him. Newt Gingrich can unleash unmitigated hell against MItt Romney and just like the attacks on Newt were true, they’ll all be true about MItt Romney too.

 

So that's one take on the TEA Party... it's failed, it has surrendered.

The other take comes from Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, and is much more "positive" where the TEA Party is concerned. This hit my inbox at 3 AM:

 

.... The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

[....]

So the path ahead for Romney -- or whichever of the Republican candidates is going to emerge from this process -- is sadly and starkly very clear: to run even further to the extreme right, and make even more dangerous promises that threaten not only the progress we've made but the fundamental fabric of American society.

We also know that candidates who take these extreme positions can, in the right circumstances, win not only a primary but also a general election in just about any state.... 

.... We've got to be ready ....

 

 

Comments

[Joel]

If you loved Bush-like "compassionate conservatism" you will just love Newtie Gingrich, Father Santorum and Mitt Romney. Erick Erickson shows that the Tea Party was used by the Republican Establishment all along and when Michele Bachmann becomes the face of the Tea Party (after Sharron Angle, Rand Paul and Christine O'Donnell) it is game over.

[Mannie Sherberg]

Until last night, my image of Santorum -- based entirely on his performance in the debates -- was of a dour, humorless, and somewhat whiney guy who, by running for the presidency, was out of his league. His speech last night -- which was masterly -- convinced me otherwise. This may well be the man who deserves the GOP nomination -- and who CAN beat Obama. The man's personal story is riveting, his humility is moving, and his ability to pinpoint and define the issues is compelling. His summary of the challenges facing our country almost rivaled Newt Gingrich's earlier in the evening -- and that's no small compliment. Moreover, the man comes across as genuine; there's nothing slick, nothing plastic, nothing manufactured about the guy. He comes across as a mensh -- not an artifact. If Gingrich can't get the nomination, then I for one will be happy to see it go to Santorum -- and proud to vote for him in November.

[Joel]

Rick Santorum could not even win Pennsylvania in 2006 (granted no Republican including Lincoln would have won in that year, thank you George W. Bush!) but to lose by 16 points? Again we are making the mistake of looking for the conservative on a white horse - Palin, then Bachmann, then Cain (what a joke he was), then Gingrich and now Santorum.

[Mannie Sherberg]

Joel -- I'm not looking for a conservative on a white horse, or even a conservative who can ride a horse. I'm looking for a conservative who can win in November. Romney is in my opinion neither a conservative nor a likely winner. After hearing Santorum's hard-hitting speech last night, I'm certain he is a conservative and I think he'd stand a good chance against Obama. If you juxtapose Obama and Santorum on a debate stage, I think there's a good likelihood the humble guy with the coal-miner grandfather would measure up very nicely against the vainglorious narcissist. I'll take that match-up against an Obama-Romney match-up any day.

[yeshiva son]

I don't know what to think about Santorum. I would be okay with him I guess. I found his debate performances very annoying, but I guess that's not necessarily relevant. It seems like he is fantastic on foreign policy.

[Joel]

@Mannie Sherberg As Rich Lowrey wrote the other day - "We (the Republicans) definitely do not have our A-team running."

[Mannie Sherberg]

Joel: I agree.

[scp]

Newt Gingrich - Exposes America's Cancer (15:19 video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lInT1DgqByI