I’m skeptical. What would it achieve?

Big Government has learned of at least one other conference call/meeting around this time. A meeting of former Clintonistas and senior Democrat political operatives to coordinate a push-back to the burgeoning tea party movement. Consider it a Democrat party relief effort…

Big Government has learned that Clintonistas are plotting a “push/pull” strategy. They plan to identify 7-8 national figures active in the tea party movement and engage in deep opposition research on them. If possible, they will identify one or two they can perhaps ‘turn’, either with money or threats, to create a mole in the movement. The others will be subjected to a full-on smear campaign. (Has MSNBC already been notified?)

Big Government has also learned that James Carville will head up the effort.

Obviously, there is no love lost between Obama and the Clinton machine. It may at first seem odd that Clinton would rush to Obama’s defense, but the tea party movement poses a threat far beyond the immediate goals of the Obama Administration.

For starters, while I suppose anyone can be “turned” if the dirt on them is dirty enough, you’re dealing with some pretty fervent ideologues when it comes to the tea-party leadership. Guys who believe firmly enough in what they’re doing to dress up like Thomas Paine aren’t ripe prospects to become traitors to their own side. Beyond that, precisely what sort of information are the Clintonistas hoping to glean here? The names of all the Birthers in the ranks? Advance warning of the next rally? The whole point of the tea-party movement is to remain decentralized and leaderless. Under those circumstances, what real power does a “leader” have? Beyond all that, given the attention right-wing media has devoted to the tea parties, why would Clinton et al. risk a PR clusterfark by targeting citizen leaders of a populist movement in this political climate? If it could be proved that Democratic bigwigs were trying to intimidate John Q. Public and his “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, the political cost would be vastly greater than the benefit.

But those are all details. Here’s the big question: Per this morning’s CNN poll, tea partiers are potentially the best friends Democrats have. All the left needs to do to blunt the effect of a Republican wave in November is convince TPers to run as third-party candidates, thereby drawing off 15 percent or so of the vote and ensuring Democratic reelection. In which case, er, why target them? Destroying tea-party leaders won’t blunt grassroots conservatives’ demand for smaller government; if you really want to protect the progressive agenda, the smart move would be to encourage more tea-party leaders and drive some sort of permanent wedge between them and the GOP. What am I missing here?

Update: For once, Michael Steele has the right idea.