The leaderless aspect of it made it too easy for the GOP leadership and the Democrats to divide us up, isolate us, and wipe us out in 2012. Someone is going to have to emerge as a leader. So far, Paul seems like he could be up for the job despite some reservations I have about him.

Doomberg on February 12, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Exactly. As I heard some wag put it, “leaderless resistance movements end up being all leaderless and no resistance.”

It’s one thing not to be a totally top-down group. But trying to run a political party without leaders is like trying to drive a car with one set of wheels.

Since the Powers That Be decided it was Jeb Bush’s “turn,” to run for president, the way it was for Dole, McCain,and Romney, and Jeb decided to hand that turn, no doubt the PTB are furious.

Suck it up, RINOs.

Wethal on February 12, 2013 at 8:07 AM

I think Rubio is being groomed as Jeb’s veep candidate. It is apparently a myth that VP and presidential candidates cannot come from the same state: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/vicepresident.asp

The Tea Party is a leaderless movement from the grassroots…but here’s the US senator son of a US congressman to speak for us.

thebrokenrattle on February 12, 2013 at 8:54 AM

The leaderless aspect of it made it too easy for the GOP leadership and the Democrats to divide us up, isolate us, and wipe us out in 2012. Someone is going to have to emerge as a leader. So far, Paul seems like he could be up for the job despite some reservations I have about him.

The Tea Party is a leaderless movement from the grassroots…but here’s the US senator son of a US congressman to speak for us.

thebrokenrattle on February 12, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Heaven forbid you not have John Q. Nobody as your spokesman.

While the media and the Democrats can scream bloody murder about it, a more independent Tea Party could have the potential to shift the whole playing field to the right, rendering them the US’s conservative party, the GOP the centrist party and the Democrats of course the left wing party. People follow politicians as much if not more than politicians follow the people.

Kind of a long shot, but if the Tea Party is to be truly transformative, I think it happens in this form.

Paul himself seemed to unintentionally acknowledge this when he added: “I don’t always agree [with Rubio], but the thing is, this isn’t about he and I [sic], this is about the tea party.” …

Notice the editorial dig from Marlantes or her editor at CSM? Strictly speaking, she’s correct: Paul should have said “about him and me.” Does CSM toss in sics to point out Obama’s grammatical misuse of the proper case? Besides, sics are generally reserved for quotations of written material as a means of informing the reader that the error appeared in the original text. Here, CSM is quoting an oral statement. Unless we can’t normally rely on CSM’s ability to quote someone accurately, it seems safe to say that readers know–assuming they even identified it–the source of the grammatical error. In this case, this is an illustration of CSM’s trying to make Paul seem like a backwoods rube.

Would that the same standard be applied to Obama because he makes these kinds of mistakes all the time.

Suck it up, RINOs.