This is a quick message to all of the incredibly pessimistic people that keep leaving comments here.
1. If you are so worried that the members of the tea party movement will not work hard enough in the trenches, i.e. at the precinct caucuses, taking over the Republican party from the inside, etc., then I ask you, what are you doing to help? If you are knowledgeable about the process, why are you not getting out there to educate all the tea partiers on how to be effective agents of change within the GOP? If the members of the movement are unaware of the process and you are aware and you keep this knowledge to yourself, and then have the nerve to complain about it, then you are part of the problem.
So take your pessimism and either keep it to yourself if you are not willing to help the movement, or get your butt out there and teach people. Type up an informative sheet with the steps we'd need to take to really make a difference, print out hundreds of them, and bring them to every tea party event to hand out. Offer to teach a class at the library and I, and others, will advertise it for you. Basically, if you can't be part of the solution, then you are a part of the problem. And sadly, for you pessimists, I am a natural optimist. I will never stop fighting progressivism within and without. Your discouraging words will not make me, or others, hesitate to keep working and fighting, so if that is your ultimate goal, then sorry, you lose.
If you can help, then help. Otherwise, zip it.
2. The whole "Scott Brown isn't really a conservative so tea partiers shouldn't help him" issue - let's talk about this. One, he has campaigned solely on the promise to kill ObamaCare, which seems to be a popular stance to take, even in Massachusetts. Two, one of the core tenets of conservatism is federalism, i.e. each state is free to be the kind of state they want to be (within the limits of the Constitution of course). Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative through and through, would never, ever, get elected in Massachusetts - at least not yet. Federalism allows each state to elect people that represent them, which is the basis of our form of representative democracy. So just as you would resent Massachusetts' liberals forcing you to elect a too-liberal candidate, don't you think Massachusetts voters would resent us forcing them to elect a too-conservative candidate?
HOWEVER, and here is the very, very important point I want to make: Republicans, tea partiers, conservatives, etc. should demand one thing of their candidates and elected officials: federalism. This means that candidates like Scott Brown could be more liberal as long as he doesn't try to impose his views on other states. So he may have supported the Massachusetts health care plan way back when, but he seems to believe it is a state issue and therefore will not vote for any comprehensive health care deform at the federal level. Does the chance exist that he will disappoint? Yes. But there is also the chance that he may not, especially if the tea party movement is there every step of the way, reminding him about federalism.
I don't believe in forcing voters of other states to elect the people that I support, but I do expect that anyone with an (R) behind his or her name will abide by the powers mandated to them in the Constitution. So even if Scott Brown is more liberal, as most of his constituents are, but he refuses to impose those beliefs on other states, then he is more than acceptable in my book. I believe that if we demand all Republican politicians (and Democrats for that matter) abide by that one basic rule, then most of our troubles would melt away. The residents of each state could craft their state to their own satisfaction. I think it would be a beautiful thing.
Of course this will require the tea partiers to keep the politicians' feet to the fire regardless of party affiliation. And that is something I think we will do from now on.