Skip to comments.Follow The Tea Party Money
Posted on 06/10/2014 9:24:02 PM PDT by nathanbedford
Will The Tea Party gain renewed credibility which it does not deserve?
Professor Brat's stunning upset ousting the Majority Leader in the Republican primary, the first time ever at American history, is being credited to The Tea Party and we are being told that the tea party now has a new lease on life.
Did the The Tea Party actually significantly contribute either money or shoe leather to David Brat's win? Evidently not. Brat has spent only about $100,000 and has virtually no money with which to campaign in the general election. Clearly The Tea Party has not contributed significant money.
More, it appears that the candidate himself does not claim the mantle of The Tea Party but instead describes himself as a "free market" candidate. With the evidence we have before us now it appears that this victory cannot be claimed as the property of The Tea Party. That is not to say that Brat does not represent a true grass roots conservative rebellion against the Rino establishment, he does and he is fully worthy of our support. The question is, where was The Tea Party?
A few weeks ago an article which appeared In Politico was covered here on FreeRepublic which cataloging a devastating list of tea party groups who have recorded unconscionably high administrative costs and pathetically small contributions to grassroots candidates. I have yet to see a rebuttal of these data and as far as I know we are looking at a group of leaders of many tea party movements who are lining their pockets at the expense of ingenuous conservatives who have parted with their money as well is their prayers.
With Brat's victory prominent in the news it is time to ask, what about it, where is the money going?
It’s not a victory for the national Tea Party groups like TPX, TPP, etc. But local Virginia tea partiers were behind Brat.
The Tea Party has never been about electing ‘Tea Party candidates’. It has been about electing conservatives. We did that tonight.
I think it’s a good point. As some on Twitter mentioned tonight, this is a Tea Party win (via the voters), but the organizations taking the mantle of the movement were hardly involved at all.
One of the key benefits of this movement is that it’s about ideas, not about specific people. Many of these groups have fundraised as THE leaders of the party, but we haven’t gotten much back from them in terms of electoral success. You mentioned there has been no response to the charges of high administration costs. That seems to speak volumes.
Well, the conservative grassroots tea party voters won the primary for him. That pretty much makes him the tea party candidate (vs the losing GOP establishment $$$ candidate).
Of course it has, that is how it identifies the conservatives it supports against Rinos, although both are identified as "Republicans."
Lois Lerner must be fuming.
Thanks for pointing this out, because too many people are attempting to call this a “tea party victory” when in fact it was the victory of one man and his ideas. His views may align with those of the tea party, but coincidence does not equal causation.
This doesn’t prove the “tea party” (whichever or however you define that term) is yet an effective element in influencing election outcomes (as Lindsay Grahams victory proves). Mr. Brat was a good strong candidate who pulled off an incredible upset by making his case with the voters who turned out today. “The Tea Party” should study all the factors surrounding tonight’s victory and learn from this example instead of rushing to take credit for an outcome it had little to do with.
Your money should only be going directly to good candidates. Period! If anyone is sending his money to any organization -- GOP, Tea Party or otherwise -- he's a sucker.
I don’t think that’s the case. Take the Tea Party in Idaho for example. They supported a conservative challenge to Mike Simpson, but supported incbumbent senator Jim Risch to walk right to renomination. Risch was nominated in 2008, and has since been a solid conservative in the senate, but he is not a ‘Tea Partier’. Indeed, he predates the Tea Party.
Look at Jeff Sessions. Very popular among the Tea Party, I myself totally backed his reelection, but he’s not a ‘Tea Partier’.
What is the difference between a senator like Mike Lee and a senator like Jeff Sessions? Not much really. Both are conservatives, and both have the support of the Tea Party.
It’s never been about so-called Tea Party groups and organizations.
It’s about US.
We, the fed up.
We, the sick and tired.
We, THE PEOPLE.
Why donate money to a “Tea Party Patriot,” “Tea Party Express,” or whatever EIEIO group comes along, when you can contribute directly to a political candidate who shares your values?
It eliminates the bureaucratic middleman.
Yes, my wife and I (and I think many others as well) have learned the hard way that you should only give to the candidate.
I think he represents Tea Party values, the people’s values. Tea Party is just another name for the people.
It’s good to see Brat winning so close to DC, right where they live.
Something like the first Mannassas, hmmm?
It will be revealing to see if the GOPe puts their resources behind the people's choice or leave him twisting in the wind.
The Tea Party is not an organization. It is a mindset. That mindset won.
I think you’ve summed it up well. I’ve seen some truly idiotic stuff put forth by a purported “tea party group” in ways that cause even Conservatives to fight amongst themselves, even though everyone agrees on the fundamental principle that underlies the issue.
This doesn’t help any more than when 5 or 6 “tea party candidates” divide the conservative vote amongst themselves so the GOP elitist can win.
Listen to Dave Brat say it himself: he won on the strength of ideas that reflect common sense and solutions that are based on conservative principles, not “left vs right” nonsense:
In defense of the local TEA Party groups, most of these people are political neophytes and ordinary citizens who have no idea how to run an organization and manage its financial books. That needs to change moving forward, and I expect it will.
To those posters who say that the only prudent course today is to send your money to the candidate rather than to an organization, I say again, yes.
But the question for us is how do we gain political power to save the Republic through conservative principles. The best vehicle for that is and remains the Republican Party which is tragically entirely in the clutches of a Rino establishment. How do we gain control the party, or at least how do we influence it?
Until now the best hope has been to organize and present a united front and that we have been doing under the rubric of, "The Tea Party." Can you imagine approaching the likes of Cantor, Boehner, McConnell as an individual saying you better listen to me or I'm going to send my $20 contribution to the candidate? You will not even get a hearing from these men. But if we are organized and we approach the Republican establishment and say we represent the votes and the contributions of millions of American conservatives, we will at least get a hearing.
The point is that we lose leverage if we cannot present a united front. But a false and fraudulent front is worse than no front.
Please name the “leaders” of the “Tea Party”. Who is speaking for us?
That is the elusive nature of a genuine grass roots effort.