Message for my Fellow Tea Partiers

Let me self identify a little bit.  I would consider myself very conservative and mostly in line with what Tea Party Republicans believe.  Don't tread on me, come and take it, molon labe, etc., etc.

I like Marco Rubio.  I like Ted Cruz and his methods.  I love Rand Paul.  Scott Walker is pretty much my hero.

I support Art Halverson over Bill Shuster here in PA and was crushed when Owen Hill couldn't gain traction in Colorado (same with Pat McGeehan in West Virginia).

I'm rooting for Matt Bevin in Kentucky, Rob Maness in Louisiana, Chris McDaniel in Mississippi, and Greg Brannon in North Carolina.

We need fiscal discipline and a decrease in the size of government.  A lot of power needs to be taken back from the federal government and returned to the states.

I also think that the "establishment" has gone far out of its way to take down conservative candidates (especially Mitch McConnell). 

But I want to make two critiques of the Tea Party movement:

1) Stop using the term "RINO"
and
2) Vet candidates better

The term RINO (Republicans In Name Only) is getting pretty old, and, to be honest, it kind of ticks me off.  I get that it's catchy and makes for a good rally cry, but it has to stop.  The Republican Party needs to cast a wide net to capture the best ideas and best candidates.  I want someone conservative, but I also recognize that we probably aren't going to win New Jersey with a Ted Cruz or Illinois with a Mike Lee.  That's not me denigrating our ideas, just simply recognizing that some states aren't as ready for a strong conservative message.  They will however be open to bold ideas that limit government.  Probably not the muskets or tri corner hats, though.

By using "RINO" we imply that only a specific and certain mold makes for a Republican.  What about when our Tea Party guys conflict on issues?  Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have different thoughts on foreign policy.  Is only one of them a Republican and the other faking it?

I'm not a Chris Christie fan, but he deserves the ability to express his thoughts.  Yes, he's more moderate than I would like, but he is a Republican and we should listen to his ideas.  There are some good ones in there.

And the term is expanding to folks who make one or two votes we disagree with.  Senator Pat Toomey is a great example.  I didn't like his vote on the fiscal cliff or siding with Senator Joe Manchin on a gun control proposal.  Because of these stances, which were not completely indefensible, but which I still disagreed with, many labeled him a RINO.  Really?  He's a pretty darn good senator who has proposed some good reforms that limit government and reduce spending.  Are you willing to rake him over the coals because his ideology does not match 100% to yours?  Are you willing to back a far right candidate in the primaries who has no chance of winning Pennsylvania in a general election because you only agree with Toomey 90% of the time?  Come on now.

Cast a big net.  Reject ideas that don't sound good.  Reject candidates who clearly do not value what you do.  But for crying out loud, don't say they aren't Republicans.  They may not be conservative, or, at least not conservative enough for you or me, but they still need to be welcome in the party.  Yes, even John McCain and Peter King.

As far as vetting better candidates go, I stand by William Buckley's idea of selecting the most conservative candidate who can win.  Because electability matters.  Now, the mainstream media gets electability wrong constantly, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.  Yes, my best example is Todd Akin.  Conservative?  Yes.  Good candidate?  No.  It's not like we didn't have better options in the 2012 Missouri Republican primaries either.  Akin was backed by Mike Huckabee, Michele Bachman, Jim Jordan, Steve King, and Phylis Schlafly to name a few.  But John Brunner was backed by Ron Johnson, Tom Coburn, and FreedomWorks, while Sarah Steelman was endorsed by Sarah Palin, Mike Lee, and the Tea Party Express.  Brunner is a businessman while Steelman was a state treasurer.  The two of them were both outstanding candidates, but we went with the one who said you can't get pregnant from rape.

Don't take this to mean that we have to sacrifice conservative ideals.  By no means!  However, if we nominate someone who cannot articulate conservative values and the benefits of limited government, we will not win.  I have no problem going down fighting with a true conservative candidate as long as they are qualified and intelligent.  But I refuse to look at Christine O'Donnell's campaign in 2010 as a good idea.

I might be looked on with scorn for this, but I can accept Pat Roberts in the senate (in fact, I support him over Milton Wolf).  I can accept John Cornyn in the senate (though I kind of wanted to see Dwayne Stovall win it).  They are pretty conservative and have some leverage in the senate.  We need to separate these races from those in Mississippi, where the senator in question (Thad Cochran) has been in Washington since the Nixon administration and is facing a conservative, qualified, and solid candidate in a deep red state.  Heritage and FreedomWorks score those senators as such lifetime, respectively: Roberts: 79/74, Cornyn: 85/79, and Cochran: 60/57.  We need to differentiate between senators that aren't ideal but are still quality (like Roberts and Cornyn) and senators who need to go immediately (Cochran).  Like it or not, we need guys like Roberts and Cornyn who are pretty reliably conservative to stick around awhile to gain leadership positions.  I agree that folks like Cochran (and McConnell: 77/76) should not be in leadership positions, and in the case of Cochran, not even in the senate.  But that doesn't mean we get rid of everyone who doesn't score over a 95% from Heritage or FreedomWorks.  In the pursuit of perfection, we will lose our chance to make any positive reforms.

And let's address the 2012 GOP primaries while we're at it.  Herman Cain?  Michele Bachmann?  I like them both, but is that really the route we wanted to go?  Look, I'd love to see Cain in congress or possibly even a governor.  But it was embarrassing to see him ahead in the polls to become our nominee for president.  And although Bachmann had at least been in congress a few years, were we really going to say that her experience qualified her?  There were a few legitimate, albeit flawed, candidates to rally around: Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, and Ron Paul.  Even if we aren't thrilled with any of them, those were the only ones that could possibly have won the presidency.  And to be honest, I don't even think Gingrich, Pawlenty, or Paul were realistic options to defeat Barack Obama.

So let's cut the "RINO" stuff.  And let's cut the "throw them all out" mentality (though sometimes it certainly feels cathartic to say so).  We need folks like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Tim Scott where we can.  If the best we can do in a state is a Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, or Ron Johnson we should be so lucky!  And when we have reliable conservatives in line for leadership positions like John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, and Mike Enzi, we should think hard about whether it's worth getting rid of them.