Remarks on Kaputs (Stupak backwards, fyi) come first.
I’ve said it before, the strength of the tea party movement (really, again, it’s not even a movement anymore, it’s the general public when 52% of them say that the tea party has a better grasp of the issues than congress) lies in its lack of a formal structure. Starfish verses a spider: which is harder to kill? Which has a head?
The biggest gift to the left is to establish a leader or group and intertwine the messenger with the message so that one cannot survive without the other. It’s political suicide. When you form a group with the expressed purpose of “NTPF will act as a clearinghouse and to promote the Tea Party movement’s objectives,” whether intended or not, it sounds like the beginnings of a third party.
I also don’t get the other stated purpose of the recently-announced National Tea Party Federation:
“The federation will act as a “rapid response” team to mainstream media misinformation.”
We have elections we should be focusing on; we allow ourselves to become distracted by taking the bait and focusing our efforts on battling state-run media rhetoric. It doesn’t matter if there is a group, a leader, a whatever, the opposition will say what it’s going to say and it’s bad strategy to let them define the narrative. You validate by organizing strictly to combat that. The various sovereign tea party groups around the country have done a fantastic job so far of handling themselves and speaking for themselves. Every person in this movement is a leader, a founder. Take ownership and you work harder for it. The independence is the spirit of the awakening.
I appreciate people’s initiative, but as Roger Stone said yesterday on my show, why would you want to give someone something that can be hijacked or co-opted? I’ll add to it: why would you want to give a grassroots movement a major vulnerability by making it seem that it is only as perfect as the person or group leading it? Those are my concerns.