Bachmann understood this distinction when she's talk about what the Tea Party was at essentially every appearance.
Palin understood the distinction when Van Susteren asked how social conservative Santorum could appeal to the Tea Party and she spoke of highlighting a fiscally conservative message.
Those who wish to hijack the Tea Party movement to push social policy agendas do so at grave risk of destroying that important coalition.
Do not overreach. Accept the common ground, the common principles and move the country in the right direction. Build on that over time or lose everything.
An everything or nothing attitude is a sure path to failure.
It would have taken fewer words if you have just said - compromise.
Well's somebody's parallel injection for the Tea Party to consider is deemed by too many a "hijack." Merely recognizing associated concepts and links isn't treating people who introduce those concepts as out-and-out "pirates" and "hijackers."
Allow me to provide an example:
I've seen articles -- and books -- on the economic effects of abortion.
For example...when you think of the dozens of millions of abortions in the U.S. (& hundreds of millions worldwide)...
* Think of how many less diapers and associated baby products have been produced;
* How many less classrooms have been filled...less need for curricula...educators...entire schools closed down due to that loss of a critical mass...
* And those dead babies never grow up either to be consumers or contributors to the economy or their communities...
Now, SOME people might want to carve some hermetically sealed line 'tween the economy and a "social policy" like abortion. What a tremendous lack of insight and discernment that would be.
The same could be said for experimental family configurations. What tends to be "tried out" experimentally more oft than not winds up with govt picking up the welfare and food stamp and other services' tab. So cohabitation, polygamy and polyamory arrangements and multiple partners may seem "remote" to economics; but it's not.
As long as people expect govt to be THE "safety net" for families, then social policies with $ consequences attached need to be addressed...even when some of these aspects are not "front and center."