To date, the Tea Party movement has made its momentum felt in the primaries. The Delaware Republican primary is bringing the issue of grass-roots, pro-freedom upward pressure on the GOP to a head.
Some view the primary as a "purity test" of the GOP:
How, exactly, does asking the GOP to stand on and by its own principles make activists "purists"?
Others focus on the likelihood, or lack thereof, of the Republicans gaining seats in the Senate this November if the the Tea Party voice carries the ticket:
How does winning the general and continuing to be part of the problem help anything? If we're going to drive off the cliff, doing so in a bipartisan fashion brings little comfort to those on the bus who see the cliff approaching.
The larger question remains: If hangers-on from the same old, myopically establishment, go-along-to-get-along, "moderates" win the primaries in order to win the general election, will that further the cause of freedom and bring government closer to being one with limited power in our lives, or will it keep us on the path to fiscal oblivion and government ubiquity upon which we are currently speeding?
Will implanting one more big-spending Republican into the visible government help the general public distinguish between the parties?
Put another way, does or does not the Democrat-lite, Rockefeller crowd in the GOP have any fingerprints on our current unsustainable spending and deficit? Should they or should they not be kept in office? Should they or should they not be put into office? If so or if not, would the Oracles from on high please condescend to us unwashed rabble (who are irrational rubes who somehow are simultaneously sophisticated enough to be "purists") and enlighten us?
I've been scouring the Federalist Papers for some applicable passage; there is something in there or some other source. Suggestions are welcome.
I suspect even the founders, with all the prudential insight into human nature, history, and politics could not even see this coming.
