Would this be the same Tea Party insurgency that put Scott Brown into the Senate?
What are the Tea Parties actually in favour of, rather than against? Not pro-life or the defence of traditional marriage, neither of which they ever mention. Catholics pretty much gave up on the GOP and went home in 2008, and white Evangelicals would already have done the same if Obama had played his cards right and appointed one of their number to the Supreme Court, something that the Republicans have no more done than they have ever done anything about abortion.
The Tea Parties are something else entirely, and it is not at all clear, even to themselves, what that is. Where are the Tea Parties against the fiscal irresponsibility, and the wildly anti-conservative social and cultural effects, of neoliberal economics and neoconservative foreign policy? For that matter, where are the May Day and Labor Day events against the anti-worker intentions and effects of mass and illegal immigration?
Where are the Tea Parties against Pat Toomey, with his Club for Greed slogan, "Invade The World, Invite The World, In Hock To The World"? The Tea Parties may have been at least partially responsible for the nomination of Rand Paul, but whatever happened to Peg Luksik?
And where are the Tea Parties against Sharron Angle, unendorsed by an NRA with a good name to protect, and angling for Scientology to take over where the loss of The Washington Times has forced the Moonies to leave off? Does Middle America now mean Scientology but not the NRA? Or maybe, just maybe, does a fake-spontaneous movement called into being by Rupert Murdoch actually have nothing to do with Middle America, still less constitute its bespoke voice in the present age?