Except the Tea Party isn’t really a party but a collection of frustrated people. The only principles I think they could agree on at this pint is that they favor “small” government and revere the founders. Good principles, no doubt but the devil hides in the details about how to get there. So at this point I’d say the Tea Party is just more “hope and change” hype. Beyond that, I’m not sure there is any position on the social issues that Tea Party members would agree on. And then there’s the issue of national security. Do tea party members agree on a strong national defense or a more libertarian “it’s not my job” national defense? Lots of issues beyond just “small” Gov and RINO killing which would quickly put the tea party in the same hall of fame as the Ross Perot’s (or was it Buchannan’s or Nadar’s) deformed party?
Exactly. Indeed, the "Tea Party" movement doesn't appear to really have any hard and fast core principles either, beyond the general "small government" push.
Somebody posted a political advertisement for a Tea Party candidate on here yesterday, I think it was, some guy named Schiffer running up in OH. I checked it out, and frankly, he looked like some kind of Buchananite, which means I wouldn't support him. He never did get around to really explaining why the Republican he was running against was bad, except for some vague ramblings about how the "establishment" had "hand-picked" him (whether that is really true or not, I don't know, but depending on his ideology, doesn't matter that much).
If the Tea Party movement is going to be hijacked by Buchananites and other wackos, then it doesn't deserve to go anywhere. It needs to be a vehicle for true conservatives, not government-intervention friendly populists.
And I say this as someone who is supportive of the Tea Party movement and has been involved in organising Tea Parties.