“It would be. If it helped. But what is the point in wining primaries when GOP corporate actively works to obstruct the new hires?”
Both of you have good points, actually, which is why this debate has continued for years.
The ideal thing would be a simultaneous Conservative effort, an all-out full-court press (or “revolt,” so to speak) , both from the top down (current Conservative members of Congress) and from the bottom up (local primary level), with the goal of eventually meeting in the middle. The sooner the better, because very soon, if The Left reaches their goal, all of our online bloviating will be irrelevant. Or not even possible at all.
The required and long overdue full court press is impossible as long as a segment of the supposed ‘conservative base’ continues to excuse the actions of the GOP.
A thinking person would logically conclude these people are GOP first and foremost and not conservative at all. Actions speak louder than words afterall.
So until we ignore them and take the bull by the horns (and rid ourselves of them entirely), we will continue to wallow in useless what if scenarios.
Ugly truth, but a real truth.
Second, let's agree that, as NN has pointed out, we don't have a helluva lotta time in which to make an impact and change the direction of government (i.e., Washington).
Third, recognize that one of the primary problems of a third party movement is that it will invariably leave the Democrats in charge for the foreseeable future.
Accordingly, Tea Party conservatives have two choices:
1. Split off and form a third party movement. Essentially, secede and start a political Civil War. Which will cede the battlefield to the liberals for at least a decade...
2. Start a full-court press to take over the Republican party machinery -- the equivalent of a full-throated insurrection. Which desperately needs to bear fruit within a relatively short time frame.
Yeah, I know, the GOP-e has created some rules expressly designed to negate the latter approach. But, under the circumstances, seems to be the only practicable course.
Ask yourselves, how in hell did the radicals come to control the Democrat party? Presumably, the Dem-e of the time was no more interested in being superseded than the GOP-e.
Recall that, in 1968, the radicals were protesting in Grant Park -- across the street from where the Democrats were conducting their convention. By 1972, they had taken over much of the party's machinery...and actually got their candidate nominated. By 1976, with the help of Watergate, they were able to elect a President -- and, from thenceforth, achieved complete complete control of the party. To that end, recall that, in 1992, Bill Clinton was actually styled as a "New Democrat" -- an alternative to the what had become a "far left Dem-e".
Seems to me, that going off half-cocked and forming a third party only serves to punish the GOP-e -- without satisfying our own goals.
Alternatively, can we duplicate the left-wing's own success in taking over the Democrat party? I confess, I don't know. And I don't know how to do it.
But we do know that it CAN be done. And does it not seem our only practical choice?
What would be the logical elements of such a strategy? The 2014 primaries assume a special importance, of course. Further, should we withhold our contributions to the RNC and the Senate and Congressional campaign commmittees and, instead, fund our candidates directly? Should the "initial strike" be a stealth campaign -- or should it be announced in advance? Do we need an acknowledged "leader of the revolution" or shall we stay with the Tea Party's diffuse "grassroots (un)organization"? Should we all run for precinct captain?
All this, and more, needs to be addressed.