Chapter 9: Fragmentation and Frustration

As part of my TEA Party +15 celebration I am serializing my 2019 book The Rise and Fall of the TEA Party. A chapter will appear each Tuesday until the 15th anniversary on February 27.

Jan 02, 2024

“This would be five Senate seats basically we've blown by just nominating the least-electable candidates." - former GOP Rep. Tom Davis.

Back in Chapter 6 I outlined a number of losing 2010 Senate races and some of the pitfalls these candidates went through, oftentimes bringing it upon themselves.

But an even better case can be made, now that we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, that having such a loosely organized and fragmented group as the TEA Party was led to its squandering the biggest opportunity they were presented for change by not unseating Barack Obama when they had the chance. On the other hand, the TEA Party often shined in local and state elections where it could nationalize their impact and support local groups with common cause.

Early in the 2012 campaign – basically in the time prior to the 2010 midterms – the natural tendency was to anoint John McCain's 2008 running mate Sarah Palin as the 2012 GOP nominee. Yet while she was extremely popular personally among the rank-and-file of the TEA Party, as I noted in Chapter 7 her electoral chances were doomed: everything from Tina Fey's “I can see Russia from my house” impersonation of Palin to the dumpster diving for dirt on her that teams of alleged journalists put forth reduced her chances of winning. Add to that Palin's resignation midway through her gubernatorial term which allowed her to be forevermore dubbed a “quitter” by the media that despised her, regardless of the validity of the reason,¹ and she was simply too much damaged goods for a Presidential run. Besides, she was having plenty of fun being a mom and getting herself all over cable TV – shrewd producers knew she had a built-in, loyal audience of TEA Party supporters in much the same demographic that later made Duck Dynasty such a raging success for a couple years.

But the signs of weariness of Palin could be seen rather early in the 2012 cycle. In October, 2010, a statewide convention of TEA Party members in Virginia – considered at the time the largest such gathering to date – selected tough-talking New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as their favorite in a major straw poll.² (Despite that victory, Christie chose instead to skip the 2012 Presidential sweepstakes to focus on his own 2013 re-election campaign. Christie would eventually fall from the TEA Party's favor when, days before the 2012 election, he incurred their wrath by embracing and commending Barack Obama³ for his assistance to New Jersey in the wake of Superstorm Sandy.) In the last chapter I noted a similar straw poll taken a few months later in February, 2011 among those who attended a national Tea Party Patriots summit. Granted, Palin was the top non-speaker in the American Policy Summit straw poll, but her vote share still was less than 10 percent.⁴

Palin was coy about her intentions for a few months, but as time ticked away and the odds of her putting together a campaign dwindled, so did her poll numbers. A Washington Post/ABC poll surveyed in October, 2011, just days before she formally announced she was taking a pass on 2012, found Palin only had 9% support among Republicans.⁵ Even worse, just 31% of those responding believed she should run, as opposed to the 66% who said no.⁶ During the summer, as Michele Bachmann's stock rose, there were a number of TEA Party regulars who believed Bachmann was the new queen of the TEA Party, deposing Palin.⁷ While Sarah was good for moving merchandise,⁸ the new conventional wisdom on Palin was that she'd become yesterday's news by not sticking with her efforts in Alaska.

So once Sarah officially took her pass on a 2012 bid on October 5^th, 2011, other would-be hopefuls maintained their quest for TEA Party support. Certainly Bachmann was among them, as by that point her campaign was beginning to flail and it needed the shot in the arm gaining Palin's supporters would bring.

The battle for the 2012 nomination, however, really began in late April, 2011 when former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson became the first candidate with potential TEA Party appeal to formally enter the race. (In truth, onetime political consultant Fred Karger declared a month before, but those in the TEA Party were unlikely to back a self-described “pro-choice, antiwar, freedom-for-all, spendthrift compromiser inspired by Nelson Rockefeller and Teddy Roosevelt.”⁹ So I'm taking the editorial license to fast-forward.) Johnson didn't have the field to himself for long, though: by Memorial Day the GOP aspirants who had made it official included (in order of announcement) Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Tim Pawlenty. June brought in more luminaries: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, and finally Michele Bachmann. Thaddeus McCotter made his bid known July 2 (only to withdraw 2½ months afterward, later kidding that the campaign was the worst 15 minutes of his life)¹⁰ and Rick Perry rounded out the field by his formal announcement August 13, the day of the final Ames Straw Poll in Iowa. One day later, the humiliating loss to his Minnesota cohort Bachmann (as well as several others) at that event in his neighboring state made it clear to Tim Pawlenty that 2012 wouldn't be his year.

If you broke down the 2012 field from a TEA Party perspective, you had conservatives in Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and Perry, the populism of Roemer and Santorum, and the libertarian side with Johnson and Paul. With so many choices, there was a growing concern from the GOP establishment – a shadowy group that preferred eventual candidate Romney, a man who enacted a state-level version of Obamacare, but could also have lived with the moderate Huntsman in a pinch – that none of the TEA Party hopefuls were “electable” against Obama. “From the point of view of a non-tea party Republican, the… possibility (of a TEA Party-backed Presidential candidate) is the most tragic waste. A winnable election will be thrown away on an ideological adventure,” wrote columnist David Frum.¹¹

Each of these “TEA Party” candidates took a turn on the polling roller coaster, leading the polls for a short period where it looked like they would be the one to take on Barack Obama. (The most suspicious polling demise among them probably belonged to Herman Cain, who fell victim to allegations of sexual harassment¹² and marital infidelity¹³ that ever-so-conveniently broke just about the time he reached the top of GOP polls. His nomination would have destroyed the “TEA Party is racist” narrative in record time.)

Unfortunately for the TEA Party, there was no perfect candidate they could unite behind and force into the Republican nomination. “I have my issues with Romney, as do most people,” said Christen Varley of the Greater Boston Tea Party. “However, nobody really seems to like anybody else.”¹⁴ Herman Cain may have been the closest because he was the Beltway outsider with business experience that many members of the TEA Party craved as presidential leadership material, but that dream crashed when the harassment charges came out. Earlier, Michele Bachmann was their darling – based largely on her part in forming the TEA Party Caucus and promotion from groups like the Tea Party Express – but she couldn't keep her momentum gained at the Ames Straw Poll going, fading as the autumn went on and eventually dropping out after a terrible showing in the Iowa caucuses.¹⁵ Starting later than her peers may have cost her, just as it may have done in Rick Perry after his strong start (in part at Bachmann's expense.) Jon Huntsman also departed the race by mid-January, but few in the TEA Party were going to miss him anyway.

On the libertarian side of the ledger, Gary Johnson had departed the race for what he thought were the greener pastures of the Libertarian Party before the Iowa caucuses, which left Ron Paul as the standard-bearer for that dwindling subset of the TEA Party. Also seeking a different party nomination was Buddy Roemer, whose curious (and low-budget, as he refused donations greater than $100)¹⁶ campaign ended up trying to start up a party called Americans Elect, then change direction in an effort to revive the Reform Party.

Thus, by the time Super Tuesday rolled around in March, the field insofar as the TEA Party (and practically everyone else) was concerned came down to four: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. At that point, the TEA Party had to be convinced that they weren't being forced to eat a crap sandwich – there was a “great deal of distrust”¹⁷ regarding Romney. “The main issue is Romneycare,” TEA Party Tampa co-founder Sharon Calvert told the New York Daily News. “Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare and that was one of the thing the grassroots really took on as an issue. We believe it must be repealed. There’s general concern whether he’d actually fight to do that. We see him as the moderate. He’s the establishment candidate.”¹⁸

But as the fight went on, it began to look more and more like either the establishment Mitt Romney or establishment Newt Gingrich would prevail, a choice that some, like columnist Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, believed was a failure of the TEA Party.¹⁹ On the other hand, there was the camp that essentially chided the movement by saying that the perfect was the enemy of the good, and job one had to be defeating Barack Obama.

Representative of that latter school of thought was writer Mark Petrina, who upbraided Bookman for his assertion:

Bookman is not only wrong, he is 180 degrees off: the Tea Party is displaying political maturity and discernment, as most of us would prefer someone else, but we are making do with the best available – and viable. Bookman’s position is pure spin, wishful thinking: we did stunning things in 2010, but suddenly we’re a failure because we haven’t succeeded in overcoming the decades-entrenched GOP Establishment? Whatever.²⁰

Also weighing in was Washington Times columnist, future Senatorial candidate, and second cousin once removed to Barack Obama, Dr. Milton Wolf. He succinctly defined the conundrum TEA Party followers faced in many races, including the Presidential one:

As the race teeters between Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney, conservatives must make it politically profitable for either or both to do the right things. Embrace the Tea Party principles, which are – not coincidentally – America’s founding principles. If either man hopes to have the enthusiastic support of the Tea Party – and he’ll need it to beat President Obama in the general election – he should enthusiastically join the movement.
(...)
Unfortunately, both Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney have, at times, forsaken conservative principles. It’s true. The offending list is long: Romneycare, bailouts, ethanol subsidies, government-sponsored enterprises and more. It’s mea culpa time, not for the mere sake of groveling, but instead to swallow their pride and convince voters that they won’t repeat those mistakes. Downgraded America simply can’t afford it.
Both Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney are exceptionally capable leaders. Conservatives have reason for optimism that either man could be an enormously successful president and usher in a new era of American prosperity and freedom. But based on their own histories, skepticism certainly is justified. Should one of these men become our next president, will he steadfastly embrace our founding principles? Or will he be too clever by half and succumb to big-government temptations? Will he fall for Washington’s siren song of bipartisanship, which has bloated our government and bankrupted our nation? Or will he instead put his trust in free Americans to guide their own lives?
Our best hope is for the Tea Party to make it politically profitable for Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney to choose wisely between their own alternate futures and to make it politically disastrous to do otherwise. The Tea Party is a powerful band of happy warriors but not blind followers.
It’s time for conservatives to quit playing checkers and start playing chess. Stop sabotaging our own candidates and instead create a path that rewards conservatism no matter who our nominee is. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are both smart enough to know that while the Tea Party lights a path to the White House, the harsh reality follows that should one of them receive its support and betray it, his presidency would be over before it began.²¹

It's worth pointing out for the record that both men actually wrote their pieces before a single vote had been cast. But with Cain out, Bachmann and Perry fading fast, and no one else very palatable to the TEA Party who stood a chance, there wasn't a reason to sugarcoat things. (Rick Santorum became the flavor of the day at the Iowa caucuses, but couldn't do much to slow the Romney advance after that.) For all the bluster that the TEA Party would select the Republican nominee, the reality was that the last four men standing had done well enough without the overt backing of the TEA Party – which had divided itself up as well as chased the tails of various flashes in the pan like Cain and Bachmann – that the movement wasn't relevant for their purpose. And as the TEA Party became just another subset of the Republican Party, the question was asked from the GOP regulars: who are you going to vote for if you don't vote for our guy?

Out of those four survivors (Gingrich, Paul, Romney, and Santorum) there was no way that many of the TEA Party members who came along later as the movement built momentum were going to back Ron Paul, as author David Brody points out:

Ron Paul will go down in American history as a man whose ideas challenged the status quo and changed the conversation in this country. He's considered the godfather of the Tea Party, and his trendsetting economic message of fiscal responsibility ushered in Teavangelical support.
But don't miss these crucial points: His foreign policy positions were a major problem for the Teavangelical audience despite a certain anti-war mindset among some Libertarians and evangelicals. A major part of the Tea Party had a problem with his noninterventionist views.²²

Nor were many interested as much in Paul's overall vision of limited government as they were in limiting just a few selected parts such as the amount of immigration, repealing Obamacare, cutting the funding spigot of favorite federal whipping boys like NPR, PBS, or the National Endowment for the Arts, and perhaps eliminating a cabinet department or two like the departments of Education or Energy. But touch my Social Security benefits? No way, Jose!

Evidence of that disconnect between the more libertarian elements present at the TEA Party's founding and those who were claiming to be supporters three years later was clear: Paul rarely saw more than 10% of the vote in a primary, regardless of field size. Even in Virginia, where arcane ballot rules set it up so that only Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were the candidates listed, Romney still won by 19 points on Super Tuesday²³ in a state that had a strong TEA Party influence. (One caveat: Virginia is a commonwealth that does not have partisan voter registration, so it's possible Romney had help from crossover Democrats who had no primary of their own.) In that most direct of contests against the so-called Establishment, Ron Paul still came up short.

Conversely, Gingrich and Santorum held more appeal to TEA Party regulars – but for different reasons. You may recall from way back when in Chapter 1 that Newt's American Solutions group was an early TEA Party backer. This was a double-edged sword: while the fledgling movement gained a lot of credibility thanks to Newt's lending his support, it also ushered in the beginning of the TEA Party's takeover by larger national groups, up to and including the Republican Party. Yet those who supported Gingrich and could look past his many personal foibles did so because of his constant barrage of new ideas and proposals on how America could work better. Rather than see America as a product of its past, as many Republicans who fondly looked back on the Reagan era would do, Newt kept his eye on the future: a future measured not in electoral cycles, but in generational cycles.

But after Newt won his victory in South Carolina – heretofore a predictor of the Republican nominee – negative advertising and continued momentum from Santorum in other Bible Belt states undercut his support. A subsequent loss in Florida to Mitt Romney, despite a TPP straw poll of activists that showed they favored Gingrich by a nearly 2-to-1 margin over Romney,²⁴ began the slow decline of the Gingrich effort. The Palmetto State and his home state of Georgia would be Newt's only two primary wins.

Santorum, on the other hand, was more of a populist. However, his campaign was also the last stand for the religious Right, which rejected Paul for his libertarianism, Gingrich for his checkered marital past, and (in some quarters) Romney for his Mormon faith. The former Senator was known for a few religious initiatives, such as supporting a religious freedom act and the teaching of intelligent design, as well as being solidly pro-life when in office, but he wouldn't have had the traction among that group that Mike Huckabee had in 2008 if both had ran. With Huckabee skipping the race this time, though, the onetime Moral Majority crowd placed that cloak of Bible Belt appeal on Santorum's shoulders. Reflecting this, Rick did his best in rural regions, winning outright in a swath of Midwestern and Southern states, but his campaign never had the funds to compete with Mitt Romney and was over by mid-April. Meanwhile, Gingrich tried to make his last stand in Delaware (of all places)²⁵ but was also out by mid-May. (Ron Paul never actually withdrew, with his supporters intending to place his name into nomination at the Republican National Convention – until they couldn't.)

So for all the insistence the TEA Party would pick the Republican nominee, that nominee turned out to be one of the least TEA Party-friendly candidates in the field – the guy whose state initiative was turned into the national nightmare of Obamacare. With some exceptions, such as Salon's Sally Kohn who believed Romney would “be sitting in the Tea Party's lap,”²⁶ observers from the Left had a field day with this. Molly Ball, then writing for The Atlantic, intoned:

For the movement that made its mark in 2010 chiefly by giving moderate, establishment Republicans a drubbing in primaries across the country – staking claim to the soul of the GOP on behalf of a newly energized, populist group of activists, no matter the cost – (a Romney nomination) is nothing short of a catastrophe. For the movement to achieve its ultimate goal of toppling President Obama, it now must join forces with just the kind of compromised, compromising Republican whose elimination was its raison d'etre.²⁷

More tellingly, Sam Rohrer, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Pennsylvania interviewed by Ball, noted:

Ultimately, they're not going to pull the lever for Obama, but… Mitt is going to have to woo them. Getting their vote is one thing; getting their impassioned commitment is another thing, and the impassioned commitment is what it takes to win.²⁸

Yet others on the Left considered the TEA Party too clever by half. Writing in the Washington Post, author Theda Skocpol (who also co-wrote a tome called The Tea Party and the Remaking of American Conservatism that I often refer to) asserted Romney was a perfect candidate for them:

In Romney, the tea party has found the ultimate prize: a candidate loyal to the movement’s agenda, but able to fool enough pundits and moderate voters to win the White House at a time when the tea party has lost broad appeal.²⁹

Ancilliary groups like FreedomWorks, which previously had split with the TPX over their decision to allow Romney to speak at a New Hampshire rally, also grudgingly moved into the Romney camp but hedged their bets by working more on downballot races.³⁰

And instead of the ascension for their cause to its rightful place in the political pecking order that many in the TEA Party believed would occur at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, TEA Party groups were left to console themselves that the GOP platform was at least friendly to their interests.³¹ “I would consider this an extremely successful convention for the Tea Party,” noted TPX's Sal Russo. “We thought we shouldn’t try and intrude on a convention that we’re happy with.”

For their part, the TPP was looking more long-term. The convention is, “more style than substance,” said leader Jenny Beth Martin. “The purpose is to legally nominate their candidate. Tea Party Patriots are far more concerned about what laws are going to be passed than what they’re doing at a party in Florida and Charlotte.”

“As long as our values are represented,” Martin continued, “we are making an effect.”³²

But those who thought the TEA Party would get credit for what they had done would be sadly disappointed in the lack of mentions during prime-time speeches,³³ if not outraged at how the party establishment manipulated the rules³⁴ ³⁵ to shut out supporters of Ron Paul from even putting his name into the quixotic nomination he earned by virtue of winning enough states.³⁶ If ever there was an excuse for the libertarian segment of the TEA Party to split away from the mainstream as it continued to cast its lot with the establishment GOP, this was it. To that group, the shenanigans at the Republican Party convention were further “proof” the nomination was stolen from Ron Paul.³⁷

Amidst the goings-on of the Presidential campaign, issues were developing with the national organizations themselves. After a three-year run at the top of the Tea Party Patriots, co-founder Mark Meckler resigned in February, 2012, citing “discomfort with the way the financial affairs of TPP have been handled... I believe that TPP is fiscally irresponsible in the way that it spends and manages donor monies.”³⁸ Meckler also complained that, as treasurer, “I have been excluded from the distribution of critical financial information, and critical discussions about the finances of the organization.” In a tersely-written statement, TPP chalked up the Meckler resignation to “months of discussions and good-faith differences on how best TPP can serve the Tea Party movement.”³⁹

Questions about TPP's finances were nothing new, however. Proving once again that investigative journalism is frequently employed by the Left only against its enemies, a three-part series by Mother Jones reporter Stephanie Mencimer written in 2011 alleged, among other things:

Tea Party Patriots (TPP) has started to resemble the Beltway lobbying operations its members have denounced. The group’s leaders have cozied up to political insiders implicated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and have paid themselves significant salaries. TPP accepted the use of a private jet and a large donation of anonymous cash right before a key election, and its top officials have refused to discuss how the money was spent. And recently, the group has hired several big-time fundraising and public relations firms that work for the who’s who of the Republican political class, including some of the GOP’s most secretive campaign operations.
As TPP’s leaders entrench themselves in Washington, local activists the group represents have accused them of exploiting the grassroots for their own fame and fortune while failing to deliver any meaningful political results.⁴⁰

The investigation went on to note that TPP had not yet applied for tax-exempt status from the IRS⁴¹ and accused the group of nepotism, claiming the real treasurer of TPP was Lee Martin, husband of TPP co-founder Jenny Beth Martin.⁴² The latter allegation would tend to corroborate Meckler's claims. (Knowing what we now know about the IRS and TEA Party groups, though, the fact TPP was not approved for tax-exempt status at that time probably wasn't their fault. They were pleased with the settlement of a class-action lawsuit not completed until October, 2017, after the Trump administration had taken over.)⁴³

Meckler left the TPP to form a new group called Citizens for Self-Governance, which left Jenny Beth Martin as the sole survivor among the trio who started TPP in 2009. She took over an organization that was trying to regain its footing, as a March “Road to Repeal Rally” in Washington, D.C. featuring Herman Cain⁴⁴ didn't draw as well as expected. It appeared the physical rally aspect of the TEA Party was pretty much tapped out.

The other member of that onetime power trio, Amy Kremer, was busy riding the buses again in 2012 as the Tea Party Express fueled up for three national tours – one dubbed the “Restoring the American Dream” tour through the nation's heartland,⁴⁵ the less-formally scheduled “Reclaiming Our Future” tour⁴⁶ that staved off the recall effort against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, and the final “Winning for America” cross-country effort,⁴⁷ as well as mini-tours through Florida⁴⁸ and (again) Wisconsin.⁴⁹ One new wrinkle introduced as part of these tours: a mobile phone bank where local activists could make calls on behalf of TPX-backed candidates.⁵⁰

And perhaps there was a sense that the traditional TPX format was losing steam, but the name itself still had some cachet. Toward the end of the campaign, this mobile phone bank bus had its own tour through many of the battleground states; a tour not as heavily promoted but in their eyes vital to success. “Unlike in 2010 when the election was only driven by frustrated voters getting out to the polls, in 2012 we are seeing that those frustrated are now experienced and motivated activists working to also get their neighbors and friends to the polls,” said Kremer in a release. “This bus tour campaign will accomplish a grassroots-led phone-from-home program that will allow motivated tea party activists the opportunity to engage in the political process.”⁵¹

Kremer also added her optimism about the election results: “There is a lot of wishful thinking on Democrats’ part that the tea party has disappeared, but they don’t see the army of tea party activists that are manning the precincts, phone banks and victory centers,” she said, adding, “They also fail to note that we are on the verge of defeating an incumbent President, gaining seats in the Senate, and retaining the historic majority in the House. It doesn’t sound like we have gone away, as much as the establishment of both parties would like.”⁵²

More than any of the other so-called grassroots groups, though, the TPX was the group furiously shining the turd of the Mitt Romney candidacy. “For the past 12 months, we have been polling our members on presidential preferences, and Mitt Romney has consistently been leading or in the top 3 choices of our poll,”⁵³ they claimed.

At the grassroots level, though, there was a sense of disappointment and ruing of a missed opportunity among those who followed the TEA Party once the fait accompli of Romney going over the top in delegate count occurred in May.

Yet TEA Party history was about to repeat itself. You'll recall that the initial bitter disappointment of the Doug Hoffman NY-23 campaign in 2009 was followed quickly by the Massachusetts special election that propelled Scott Brown to the Senate and provided that critical 41^st vote against Obamacare, altering the Democrats' plans to ram it through Congress. In this case, the bruising primary battles that eventually sidelined both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum yielded to another state-level election that had national impact because it occurred at an unusual juncture on the political calendar.

In 2011, Wisconsin Democrats and their union allies put a total of six GOP state senators up for recall, threatening what was then a 19-14 Republican majority in their State Senate which backed the budgetary reforms demanded by newly elected Governor Scott Walker – measures that included provisions to curtail dues collection for the state's public-sector unions. With help from local and national TEA Party groups, Democrats were thwarted in four of the six races, allowing Republicans to maintain a slim single-vote majority in the Senate.

But the bigger contest was still to come. Wisconsin's version of Big Labor got to work after the passage of the budgetary reform bill, racking up nearly twice the number of signatures required to put the recall of Governor Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch on the ballot. The election dates were then set: a primary – which was needed on both sides because Walker drew a token GOP opponent while several Democrats vied for the chance to go against him – on May 8 and the general election on June 5.

Having a June election worked well for the TEA Party because it was a race with national interest conducted at a time when little else of political impact was occurring. Five states also held their primary elections on June 5, but with the Presidential race decided and no key Senate battles on the ballot in those states, all their attention could be focused on Wisconsin – just like the circumstances the TEA Party took advantage of in 2010 to propel Scott Brown to an upset win.

So Wisconsin became Ground Zero in a battle for preserving TEA Party principles on a state level, which, even before Romney wrapped up the nomination, was where many local groups were already focused.

(M)any Tea Party supporters said that while they would work to help any Republican defeat Mr. Obama, their real passion was for electing small-government conservatives further down the ballot and building a stable of leaders who grow up in the movement rather than trying to adapt themselves to it. If that means it takes four or eight more years for them to feel any passion for a presidential nominee, they said, it will be worth the wait.⁵⁴

The Walker recall race fit this description like a glove given his track record. So, in an effort to motivate and attract local supporters, the TPX focused one of their bus tours in Wisconsin solely to combat the recall; meanwhile the Tea Party Patriots had their own “all hands on deck” approach with hundreds of volunteers coming to Wisconsin to knock on doors. “By (mid-May), buses will begin bringing Tea Party Patriots volunteers from all across America to start canvassing Wisconsin and motivating the voters to support fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets,” said TPP co-leader Jenny Beth Martin, who was by now comfortable in her role as its lead spokesperson. She also took a swipe at the establishment: “It remains to be seen if the Ruling Class...will be able to see past their own bigoted prejudices enough to pay attention.”⁵⁵

In addition, home-based activists from around the country were encouraged to make phone calls to undecided voters. As the campaign reached its end, the enthusiasm gap was clear and in Walker's favor.⁵⁶ Of course, this left the Left fuming and looking for scapegoats, two of which were the Koch brothers and their group Americans for Prosperity, which was leading a sophisticated GOTV effort independently of the Republican Party – one which happened to be already focused on Wisconsin.⁵⁷ As the Tea Party Patriots would say, it was a “partnership for liberty.”⁵⁸

So when victory came on June 5, the TEA Party took the occasion to tell America they were back. “Tonight’s victory shows that the passion that moved Americans to the streets in 2009 and 2010 is as fervent as ever,” exclaimed TPP's Jenny Beth Martin. “Our supporters and volunteers dedicated days and weeks of their lives to make a difference in Wisconsin, and their work has paid off. Thousands more across the country are making a difference right now in their own towns, cities and states.”⁵⁹

There were also gains to be made inside the Beltway, too – or at least so the TEA Party hoped. Because 2012 was the year the Democratic wave that took over the Senate in 2006 was up for re-election, Democrats had to defend a staggering 23 of 33 seats – meaning Republicans had a 37-30 advantage in the remaining 67 seats. Thus, to regain control of the Senate the GOP only had to win 14 of 33 races.

The odds of that, however, were a little bit longer than the simple numbers would lead an observer to believe. Nine of those 23 seats were in states that Democrats had controlled for decades, making it unlikely the TEA Party would make a dent despite good candidates. Splitting the others would still leave the GOP a couple votes short of the majority. Out of those, the TEA Party had favorites in several other states, with the prime examples being Richard Mourdock of Indiana (running in the GOP primary against incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar), Josh Mandel in Ohio, Ted Cruz in Texas,⁶⁰ and John Raese in West Virginia. Notably absent from that list: 2010 darling Scott Brown, who had angered the TEA Party with his moderate Senate voting record.

Unlike 2010, and perhaps because of what happened at the top of the ticket, there was much less angst among the party bigwigs for not gaining in the Senate – as it happened, the GOP lost two net seats to fall back to a 53-45 minority, with two independents again caucusing with the Democrats. (Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman, who caucused with the Democrats, chose not to run for another term – however, Maine's Angus King took the seat formerly held by retiring centrist Republican Olympia Snowe to maintain the Senate's pair of “independents” as Vermont's Bernie Sanders also won. Meanwhile, the Connecticut seat remained in Democratic hands.)

But there were still those who took the TEA Party to task for three particular races. They blamed the movement for abandoning a Senator they helped to elect in Scott Brown in Massachusetts, setting him up for defeat by Democrat Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren. Complaints were also bitter about losing the Indiana seat, which the establishment believed would have been held if the gaffe-prone Richard Mourdock hadn't primaried six-term incumbent Richard Lugar out of a job. By that same token, Todd Akin's oft-repeated statement about rape did his candidacy in, and the TEA Party was chastised for selecting him at the ballot box, too.

Yet it's possible the TEA Party took less blame this time around because, frankly, most of the races were blowouts. The closest two GOP defeats came from states which Mitt Romney carried but without the coattails to propel the Senate candidates, both of whom were sitting Congressmen, forward: Denny Rehberg lost to Jon Tester in Montana and Rick Berg fell to Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota. To be honest, those races in “flyover country” didn't attract a lot of attention from national groups so the TEA Party was basically held harmless.

But the points regarding the losses of Brown, Akin, and Mourdock are still worth studying.

It didn't take long – only about a month after being elected in January, 2010 – for Scott Brown to get the TEA Party mad at him for a moderate vote,⁶¹ but as I briefly noted back in Chapter 4 you couldn't say they weren't warned.⁶² His defenders argued that Brown's voting pattern was a requirement to survive in a left-of-center state like Massachusetts, but fewer and fewer TEA Party regulars took that assertion to heart as Brown sided with Democrats on more and more key issues:

Brown had tried to demonstrate his independence from the national GOP in order to cultivate unaffiliated voters and soft Democrats. During the lame-duck congressional session, he broke with conservatives by supporting the New Start Treaty and an end to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy concerning gays in the military. Brown was a member of the Army National Guard, had advocated for veterans in the Massachusetts legislature, and had mostly sided with hawks during his special election campaign, so both votes were considered a surprise – and a betrayal by his more conservative supporters.⁶³

Also mentioned in the piece from The American Spectator was Brown's support for Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its initial chairman Richard Cordray – who, ironically, was selected for the job despite the fact Elizabeth Warren got the CFPB off the ground.

Despite the bluster about finding a serious primary opponent for Brown⁶⁴ in his first few months, though, no serious candidate stepped forward. Left-leaning pundits warned that losing Brown in a primary would be akin to what happened in Delaware a few months earlier, when the moderate Mike Castle – who they thought could secure a Senate seat for the GOP in a place they hadn't been successful for decades – lost to primary foe Christine O'Donnell, who in turn lost to Democrat Chris Coons in a landslide.⁶⁵

But the biggest tell in Brown's campaign was that he didn't see TEA Party support as that important anymore – or at least one could interpret it that way. “Scott Brown is an independent voice,” said campaign spokeswoman Alleigh Marre, “and while he welcomes support from all people, he is not beholden to any group.”⁶⁶ As it turned out, the “support from all people” left him almost 250,000 votes short of Elizabeth Warren's total – and two years later, Brown would cross over to New Hampshire only to lose again for their Senate seat despite the GOP's wave election.

The short answer on what killed Akin's and Mourdock's chances was this: ill-considered replies to questions about rape, which themselves were backhanded ways of trying to draw candidates (TEA Party in particular, but Republicans in general) away from the message of fiscal conservatism that had fairly broad appeal and into the divisive nature of social issues, which didn't have lockstep agreement within the TEA Party itself, let alone society at large.

The Missouri U.S. Senate race was almost an embarrassment of riches for TEA Party followers, as all three of the top GOP primary candidates – Akin, a sitting member of Congress from a suburban St. Louis district, former state treasurer Sarah Steelman, and businessman John Brunner, a political neophyte running in the role of outsider – were worthy of TEA Party support and received backing from various activists around the state. In terms of national support, the candidate who received the choicest backing was Sarah Steelman, the former state treasurer who claimed Sarah Palin⁶⁷ and the Tea Party Express⁶⁸ in her corner; however, the evangelical crowd was more likely to prefer Akin based on his worldview and endorsements from former Presidential candidates Mike Huckabee⁶⁹ and Michele Bachmann.⁷⁰ Akin won the primary on a plurality vote, besting Brunner and Steelman by six and seven percentage points, respectively. It turned out that Akin was the candidate incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill preferred to face, and later it was found she had put her own thumb on the scale in the GOP primary by spending on anti-Akin commercials in order to solidify his base, believing his “extremist” views would repel moderate voters.⁷¹

Less than two weeks after the primary, in an interview with a St. Louis television station, Akin outraged the political world by revealing his ignorance of OB-GYN principles:

During that (local television) interview the congressman and U.S. Senate candidate was asked whether abortion should be allowed in the case of rape.
“From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist.”⁷²

Within hours the firestorm of criticism and calls for Akin to step aside were at a fever pitch, from the Romney campaign on down.⁷³ ⁷⁴ Although Romney himself stopped short of asking Akin to withdraw, Amy Kremer from the Tea Party Express urged Akin to drop out⁷⁵ because defeating Claire McCaskill was too important and the deadline to do so without penalty was fast approaching.⁷⁶

But as time passed, many Missouri TEA Party members became defiant about the national catcall for Akin to quit.

I support him probably even more than I did before," said Molly Nesham, a home-schooling mother who also teaches at a Christian school and likes Akin's stand on abortion. "He made a mistake and the Republican Party abandoned him."⁷⁷

Indeed, Akin was left hanging out to dry by the big-money Republicans. But the damage was done: Akin's polling lead he'd held through August was suddenly reversed, and while he recovered to some extent the November results were a 15-point blowout win for McCaskill most of the polls underestimated.⁷⁸

In Mourdock's case, the postmortem on the Indiana primary focused to a larger extent on Lugar being out of touch with his home state⁷⁹ than on Mourdock's more conservative mindset. “Lugar betrayed the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets that must be addressed this year or the American people will choose new leaders as happened today and in 2010.” said TPP's Jenny Beth Martin. “This upset is no surprise to tax paying Americans in Indiana.”⁸⁰ She further explained, “It's time for the establishment to link arms with the Tea Party's core values and get in line with the rest of America.”⁸¹

Conversely there was also the sense among opposition partisans and the media that it was an opportunity for Democrats to steal back a GOP seat. “The 2012 Democratic nominee is Rep. Joe Donnelly, and party members think his reputation as a centrist will stack up well against Mourdock,” stated the Washington Post.⁸²

“(Mourdock) says there’s a problem... of too much bipartisanship, and he can be counted on to obstruct. Well, there are a lot of things wrong in Washington, but too much compromise is certainly not one of them,” added Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. “The more the Republicans embrace the Tea Party agenda and its candidates, the more they damage their chances in November.”⁸³

Yet the limited amount of polling in Indiana suggested the race was Mourdock's to win⁸⁴ until a debate question tipped the scales. The penultimate question of the final debate between Mourdock, Donnelly, and Libertarian hopeful Andrew Horning was on an issue most weighing on Hoosier minds like the economy – oh wait, it was about abortion. Here is the actual question and answers from each candidate transcribed from that debate.

Dennis Ryerson, moderator: The issues of abortion and contraception continue to divide the country, and questions we received from voters reflected that divide. For example, one voter wanted to know your position on a woman's 'right to abortion' but not only that, but to contraception and other reproductive health services, whether government should provide those services. Another asked if you believe that life begins at conception, and in that person's view, what would you do to protect the babies who would be aborted during your term in the Senate.
So where do you stand on these issues? Mr. Horning?
Andrew Horning, Libertarian Party candidate: Oh boy, you can imagine this is going to be a tough one...all of us up here have said we're pro-life. But what does that really mean? In terms of the federal legislature, you know, there's not really any authority granted to the federal government in matters of even murder; no, that is a state-level crime and unless it crosses state boundaries it's really not supposed to be a federal matter. In fact, I have said, you know, just on Constitutional grounds I would have to oppose Roe v. Wade being treated as law – it's not, it was an unconstitutional ruling and the laws which have been written subsequent to it and under the color of it have been wrong.
But, we have been doing so badly and so long that we have kind of forgotten how many other rights have been trampled with it. Men don't have any concomitant rights with it over their baby: you know you can't expect – you can't just say no to child support, for instance. We've gotten so lopsided with looking at this as only a woman's issue we forget that there are all kinds of ways around this where we can make it easier for people to adopt children – there are lots of things we can do better than what we are doing right now, but as a federal legislator I've got to tell you there is not much that I can do.
Ryerson: Thank you. Mr. Donnelly?
Joe Donnelly, Democratic candidate: I believe in pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception. The only exceptions I believe in are for rape, and incest, and the life of a mother. In regard to contraception, I believe that religious institutions have a right to not go against their own religious beliefs. We can't ask them to do something they simply cannot do. And so, how do we make sure that a woman has a right to that quality health care while at the same time protecting the rights of religious institutions to not violate their own beliefs. And that's what we're working on right now.
Many groups, many of them in the Catholic Church which I'm a member of, have filed suit. They have every right to file that suit. I am working on a legislative solution to it. There's also work being done on the judicial side, and we're trying to get an executive solution as well.
Ryerson: Thank you. Mr. Mourdock?
Richard Mourdock, Republican candidate: You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces, and I, too, certainly stand for life. I know there are some who disagree and I respect their point of view, but I believe life begins at conception. The only exception I have for – to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I just – I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.
You know, Mr. Donnelly's comments about Obamacare and what's happening there, trying to reform it – that's good to reform it, but it should not be here in the first place. You know, the fact that we have the Catholic Church and so many institutions having to file a lawsuit to get their basic freedom – that I thought was guaranteed under the Constitution, the practice of your religion – that now there has to be an amendment put forward to somehow bring that about. If the law had never been passed that lawsuit wouldn't be in place and religious freedom today would not be today in question.⁸⁵

What the reporting generally missed but I noticed right away in reviewing the video was the catch in Mourdock's voice and pinched facial expression when he related the part about rape. Since most people only read about the transgression, or maybe saw the five-second sound bite, they may not have noticed the change in demeanor and tenor. But it didn't matter – the Left and media had their “gotcha” sound bite they were looking for and Mourdock's campaign never recovered.

The ascension and downfall of Akin and Mourdock relates well to an issue that helped to drive a wedge through the TEA Party movement as it grew and peaked, and that's eventually going to be a significant part of this postmortem. Yet the loss of the Romney/Ryan ticket sparked a lot of finger-pointing and further upheaval in the ranks of TEA Party support groups, as well as a sea change in philosophy for one of its two most prominent organizations.

Notes - bearing in mind some of these links may now be dead ones:

1 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/us/politics/04ptext.html

2 https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2010/oct/12/sarah-palin-tea-party-2012 It's interesting to read the foreign press reporting on the TEA Party, whatever the subject.

3 http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/04/ christie_on_embracing_obama_after_hurricane_sandy_i_was_doing_my_job.html

4 https://www.teapartypatriots.org/content/tea-party-patriots-presidential-straw-poll-shows-activists-looking-for-leadership/

5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_100211.html That poll had Mitt Romney at 21%, Herman Cain and Rick Perry at 14% apiece, and Chris Christie at 10% - all ahead of Palin and already on the trail.

6 Ibid.

7 https://web.archive.org/web/20110630233245/http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/30/bachmann.palin/index.html

8 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/12/tea-party-guns-palin-washington

9 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020203272_pf.html Eight years later, the centrist Republican Fred Karger would also have to remind the media that he was the first openly gay Presidential candidate, not Democrat Pete Buttigieg.

10 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/09/flight-of-fancy-may-hurt-mccotter-064577

11 http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/31/opinion/frum-republican-tea-party-scenarios/index.html. This op-ed by centrist Republican columnist David Frum is a perfect example. He believed at the time a “Tea Party” nominee would be selected and lose the election.

12 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/10/exclusive-2-women-accused-cain-of-inappropriate-behavior-067194

13 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ginger-white-accuses-herman-cain-of-long-affair/2011/11/28/gIQA6H6T6N_story.html

14 http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/31/how-tea-party-indecision-is-boosting-mitt-romney/

15 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/8993026/US-Election-2012-Michele-Bachmann-withdraws-after-Iowa-defeat.html

16 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-campaign-roemer/inside-buddy-roemers-unlikely-white-house-run-idUSTRE7946K620111005

17 http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/zelizer-romney-tea-party-relationship/index.html The writer believed Romney would have to use the Nixon/Reagan/Bush approach of having a couple “broader themes” to appeal to the electorate.

18 http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Election_2012_Florida_Primary_Coverage/22245472

19 https://web.archive.org/web/20120117053156/http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/12/06/a-gingrichromney-race-represents-failure-of-tea-party/

20 https://www.teapartypatriots.org/content/gingrichromney-race-not-a-failure-of-tea-party/

21 https://www.teapartypatriots.org/content/gop-gains-from-principles-and-tea-party/

22 David Brody: The Teavangelicals: The Inside Story of How The Evangelicals and The Tea Party are Taking Back America (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012) p. 135.

23 http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/va/

24 https://www.teapartypatriots.org/content/gingrich-leads-tea-party-patriots-florida-straw-poll/

25 Because of this, the Presidential campaign came to my sleepy little adopted hometown of Salisbury, Maryland. Newt liked our zoo, but I liked being able to cover the speech (purportedly for the local college students only) as a blogger/journalist. http://monoblogue.us/2012/03/27/2012-campaign-comes-to-salisbury-as-gingrich-gives-a-different-speech/

26 https://www.salon.com/2012/08/31/mitt_romney_tea_party_puppet/

27 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/the-tea-partys-mitt-romney-crisis/256008/

28 Ibid.

29 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-stealth-tea-party-candidate/2012/01/31/gIQAy0BZnQ_story.html

30 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/20/romney-gets-tepid-tea-party-support/

31 https://www.teapartypatriots.org/content/tea-party-success-highlighted-at-rnc/

32 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/25/tea-party-movement-role-republican-convention.html

33 https://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/not-a-single-mention-of-the-tea-party-in-primetime-at-the-convention-so-far/

34 https://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/26/romney-rule-change-fight-on-convention-floor/

35 https://www.teapartypatriots.org/content/exclusive-interview-with-dave-nalle-national-chairman-of-the-republican-liberty-caucus/

36 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/07/dramatic-little-known-gop-rule-change-takes-choice-of-presidential-candidate-away-from-rank-and-file-republicans-and-hands-it-to-party-elite/#57642c446c7a

37 https://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/how-the-republican-party-stole-the-nomination-from-ron-paul/