First, I can't argue with what he said. It did start as a Constitutional, psuedo-libertarian movement, so he's right on.
Second, the way it got distorted was a multi-headed monster IMHO... (1) the media didn't know what to make of what was a decentralized movement. In short, the media is made up of mostly left-leaning elites, and they had no idea that people could believe in ideas they didn't share. (2) as a result, they labelled all of these diverse groups "Tea Parties" to make sense of it... though there were vast differences and copy-cats after the initial success of the movement. (3) many GOPers did ride the popularity of the Tea Parties, namely the dunce known as Sarah Palin, but in truth most of the "Tea Parties" are NOT so called social conservatives. They are libertarians. And to this day, the GOP establishment also doesn't know what to make of most of the movement. So they are trying to steer it rather than understand and listen to it.
That's my :2 cents: anyway.
Second, the way it got distorted was a multi-headed monster IMHO... (1) the media didn't know what to make of what was a decentralized movement. In short, the media is made up of mostly left-leaning elites, and they had no idea that people could believe in ideas they didn't share. (2) as a result, they labelled all of these diverse groups "Tea Parties" to make sense of it... though there were vast differences and copy-cats after the initial success of the movement. (3) many GOPers did ride the popularity of the Tea Parties, namely the dunce known as Sarah Palin, but in truth most of the "Tea Parties" are NOT so called social conservatives. They are libertarians. And to this day, the GOP establishment also doesn't know what to make of most of the movement. So they are trying to steer it rather than understand and listen to it.
That's my :2 cents: anyway.