Dan Quayle's words of wisdom to the tea party movement

Ann Kane
Together we stand, divided we fall.  I agree with Dan Quayle's exhortation to the Tea Party to stay non-partisan, and not to create a third party.  In Sunday's Washington Post, Quayle argues that tea partiers should heed the past:

There's a well-worn path of third-party movements in American history, and it leads straight to a dead end. A cause gathers strength, and its message speaks to millions; then, amid the excitement, a new political party is born, only to perform poorly on Election Day and disappear a cycle or two later. In practice, all that's achieved is a fragmenting of the vote, usually to the benefit of whichever major party the movement had set out to oppose.

Later in the Op Ed piece:

If the tea party remains an independent political force in 2012, with no partisan ties, so much the better. All that Republicans need to do is speak to its issues, compete for its votes and heed its example of a confident and unapologetic challenge to a liberal president and Congress.

Therein is the crux of the issue.  If the establishment GOP could take the blinders off, and "speak to its (the Tea Party) issues, compete for its votes...", then and only then will tea partiers unite and form a coalition with the Republican party. 

Quayle mentions Romney, Thune, Jindal, and Daniels as possible candidates to lead this coalition; yet, they all still hold the requisite job description for status quo politicians.  To his credit, Quayle at least understands who tea partiers are and what they want, but he still doesn't click when it comes to finding the right leader. 

The right leader to forge the union of the Republican Party and the Tea Party must necessarily emerge from those aligned with the Tea Party. 

 

Together we stand, divided we fall.  I agree with Dan Quayle's exhortation to the Tea Party to stay non-partisan, and not to create a third party.  In Sunday's Washington Post, Quayle argues that tea partiers should heed the past:

There's a well-worn path of third-party movements in American history, and it leads straight to a dead end. A cause gathers strength, and its message speaks to millions; then, amid the excitement, a new political party is born, only to perform poorly on Election Day and disappear a cycle or two later. In practice, all that's achieved is a fragmenting of the vote, usually to the benefit of whichever major party the movement had set out to oppose.

Later in the Op Ed piece:

If the tea party remains an independent political force in 2012, with no partisan ties, so much the better. All that Republicans need to do is speak to its issues, compete for its votes and heed its example of a confident and unapologetic challenge to a liberal president and Congress.

Therein is the crux of the issue.  If the establishment GOP could take the blinders off, and "speak to its (the Tea Party) issues, compete for its votes...", then and only then will tea partiers unite and form a coalition with the Republican party. 

Quayle mentions Romney, Thune, Jindal, and Daniels as possible candidates to lead this coalition; yet, they all still hold the requisite job description for status quo politicians.  To his credit, Quayle at least understands who tea partiers are and what they want, but he still doesn't click when it comes to finding the right leader. 

The right leader to forge the union of the Republican Party and the Tea Party must necessarily emerge from those aligned with the Tea Party.