Given the combination of scant economic and jobs-creation improvement, embarrassing losses in major gubernatorial and senatorial elections, the voluntary retirement of key Democrat perennials, corruption and tax evasion charges against longtime liberal legislators in Pelosi's "most ethical Congress in history" and the maxing-out of the Blame Bush Credit Card, who or what could be left for progressive socialists to demonize? 

 

The Tea Party movement, of course.

 

A trap that the left has attempted to set for this "decentralized galaxy of groups" as Karl Rove once aptly called the protesters, is the stereotyping of an entire movement so as to portray every Tea Party supporter as the clone of a trumped-up straw man that is equal parts conspiracy theorist, militia member and racist; an uneducated dolt who wants to oust Democrat incumbents simply because they support a Black president.

 

As an upstart collection of ostensibly do-it-yourselfers, the TPM is short on savvy politicians and spinmeisters.  As such, the wealthy, well-organized left-wing noise machine, the left-leaning mainstream media and the Obama administration's own Alinsky Squads believe that they can slice through Tea Partiers like a hot knife through butter with a coordinated personal one size fits all attack message. 

 

Of late, after the successful launch of many of their own candidates, the lefty talking points now portray most Tea Party groups as all but dead and buried.  Their story: candidates are so broke that they will be unable even to mount a challenge beyond the primaries.  As if there as ever been any kind of funding for other than a small handful of TPM-endorsed candidates, progressive socialist spinners hope to convince Americans not to root for the underdog -- an entirely counterintuitive strategy designed to obfuscate their own backlash based unraveling.

 

Nonetheless, the last thing the fragile Tea Party movement needs are GOP-connected professional strategists who would  -- inadvertently or otherwise -- assist the left's personal attack machine by leading the novices directly into their trap.

 

For instance, Karl Rove urged Tea Partiers to remain non-partisan in a February 2010 Wall Street Journal column (about which I was, perhaps, the only one to comment).  Instead of forming alliances, the group should remain completely independent and should "hold the feet of politicians in both parties to its fire," Rove wrote.  He also suggested that the movement must focus on key issues such as federal spending and debt. 

 

So far, so good.  But George W. Bush's senior advisor went on to write that Tea Partiers should disassociate themselves from "cranks and conspiracy nuts" on the fringe in order to maximize their influence. 

 

If normal, well-meaning, hard working hither-to-fore non-political patriots resent the continuous vile attacks they receive from the administration, news and entertainment media, why should they not feel betrayed by Rove's irresponsible echoing of typical lefty trapspeech?  Such off-putting commentary also hurts the GOP who, unlike the left, are in no position to demonize a movement that is comprised largely of conservative Republicans.

 

The correct response to those who arbitrarily portray Tea Partiers as over-the-edge extremists is to focus the conversation back on the far larger number of radical fringe groups and conspiracy theorists on the left. Go directly to the top and count the far-left extremists that Obama has appointed to help oversee his radical agenda. 

 

Among the Obamaczars are advocates of homosexual affairs between gay high school students and their elders, global governance, forced sterilization and abortion, "media reform" and any number of other un-denied Marxist/socialist concepts.  Several are outspoken truthers who blame the Bush administration for choreographing the 9/11 attacks to further its own war-based agenda.

 

Go back to the campaign when candidate Obama's associations with radical clerics and Sixties bombers were brushed off by his spin doctors and the slobbering mainstream media as mere examples of his, and his party's, diversity and all-inclusiveness.

 

The left has never apologized for all of those "cranks and conspiracy nuts" whose votes helped put their Dear Leader in the White House.  Not one apology has ever been uttered by the administration for corruptly rewarding the loyalty of its radical fringes with unprecedented appointments and wealth-redistributive projects designed to advance the causes of the splinter groups they represent.  So why should any other political entity be urged to disassociate itself from the widest possible range of supporters?

 

Beyond any root-for-the-underdog factor and the well-earned anti-Obama and anti-Congress backlash spawned by failed programs, broken promises, arrogance and decided anti-constituency, there can be no overcoming of the widespread sentiment that American politics can only be changed if politicians become more attentive to the desires of those who elect them, rather than to their own party-driven agenda.

 

Remaining short on savvy politicians and spinmeisters could be worth more than campaign gold to candidates who pledge to stick to their own patriotic principles and to the interests and desires of their would-be constituents. From a campaign cost efficiency perspective, Tea Party candidates certainly don't need much of a budget for the stereotyping and demonizing of current office holders or the plethora of cranks and conspiracy nuts who support them.