How Strong Was Jamie Radtke's Tea Party?

I almost feel bad bringing some of this stuff up, but its our duty to properly vet these candidates so we don't get burned again.  For Jamie Radtke, her major achievement in organzing politics was the 3,000 people-attended Richmond Tea Party Patriots Convnetion, that seems to have flexed some muscle.

Right?

Or did it?

Unlike most of the other battleground states, Virginia had no statewide races and instead were thrilled with what turned out to be four highly contested congressional races where of the four Democrat incumbents, Republicans won three.

So I'm sure the tea party can take credit for that.  Sadly, they really can't. Part of it is that Virginia's state party machinery has historically been very conservative.  Patrick McSweeney, Randy Forbes, John Hager, Ed Gillespie, Jeff Frederick - these are all very conservative politicians who served as state party chairmen.  So the dynamic is different here, its not like the RVP was swimming with moderates.  The "establisment" in Virginia does not equate to squishy moderate.

Secondly, the party has been pretty unified lately especially coming off the incredibly one-sided victories by Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Ken Cuccinelli (not to mention our HoD candidats) so the party was doing well and had the confidence of a lot of Republicans.  There wasn't a lot of angst pointing inward by the dawn of 2010.

But lets look at the politics inside these districts shall we?  First, in the 2nd, a huge primary errupted headed by Scott Rigell, who is close to Gov. McDonnell who is from the 2nd.  Various candidates claimed Tea Party support - Ben Loyola and Scott Taylor made major pushes in that direction.  Rigell was talked into the race by McDonnell and many establishmnet Republicans and apparently has been active in local politics for awhile.  In the end, Rigell won even as candidate after candidate talked the Tea Party game.

In the 5th, one would expect it to be a hotbed for tea party activism given the deep conservative strain in this, the district of Virgil Goode.  Like in the 2nd, candidate after candidate from Jim McKelvey to Feda Morton to Michael McPadden bellowing Tea Party conservatism.  Who won?  "Moderate" Robert Hurt, a "career politician" who has actually voted for the Warner Tax Hikes when he was a delegate.

Now in the 11th, Keith Fimian did ride a tea party-fueled wave to defeat Pat Herrity in the GOP primary, but this was a local dynamic at play here and I'm not sure I ever heard of Jamie Radtke during the campaign and I was as big a Fimian guy as there was. 

In the 9th, Morgan Griffith runs the House of Delegates for the Speaker, you can't be more "establishment" than that.

So what's the point of all this?

Lets be careful who is and isn't "tea party," whatever that definition is.  As Brian and LI have already pointed out, Jamie Radtke has deep roots in the professonal conservative world with stints working for Jesse Helms, George Allen, and various conservative PACs and organization.  She's not exactly the mother walking out of her home to take a stand that many of these Tea Party activists have.

That's not to say that Ms. Radtke isn't genuine in her beliefs and would make a fabulous US senator, that jury is still out.  But the successful, high-profile US Senate candidates that ran with the  Tea Party didn't just spout mantra and slogans, they formed individual theories of government.  They didn't dumb it down, they got as complicated as possible.  Listen to guys like Mike Lee and Rand Paul talk, they are genuine and orginial.  Listen to new governors like Rick Scott and Nikki Haley, there is a boldness that goes beyond plattitudes and recyled jargon.

The question, which is she.  Is she a candidate that just rallies agianst big government and the evils of Obama (think O'Donnell, Angle, and even Palin) or someone who puts forth a true vision of the role of government vis-a-vie the Constitution and how it applies to us today (think Lee, Rubio, Paul, and even Ron Paul).  People outside this Tea Party movement get it wrong so much because they don't understand that the group is vaporous, its there but you can't jut grab it and shape or mold it.  Nobody can really claim to lead it in any sort of meaningful way.  And for what she did lead in Virignia, as noted above, I'm not sure Ms. Radtke can claim to have any sort of electoral success. 

Comments

[Penelope Cantrell]

True that. Ms. Radtke needs to put forth a platforms of clearly annunciated and measurable goals and objectives. Platitudes of cutting spending and reducing the size of government will not get her candidacy off the ground.

Here's a goal. Virginia should embark upon the goal of attracting all the economically viable businesses from the State of Maryland. This can be done by offering Maryland-based business enterprises huge tax reductions and other benefits by moving to Virginia.

This would be good for Virginia employment. And it would be good for America by helping to economically weaken another state that reflexively votes for liberals and socialists.

A measurable goal might be to entice 1000 businesses each year to leave Maryland and come to Virginia. Virginia could offer similar incentives to New York and other states suffering under huge socialist bureaucracies.

Texas is leading the way in attracting economic refugees from failing economies around the country. Virginia should join Texas in that campaign. Its good for freedom. It is good for America, it is good for Virginia.

[Lauren Yoder]

Penelope Cantrell,
How would she be able to do this from the Senate. Sounds like she should be running for a state position.

[Jonesy]

She had nothing to do with the win in the 2nd, that's for sure.

[Jennifer Conover]

Change often must come in small increments, because human nature resists change even when it is for the good. Jamie Radtke realizes that you have to work with what you have. Were there others out there running for these offices who were not career politicians? By leading the Tea Party movement, she was trying to encourage "ordinary folk" to get involved.

Unfortunately, it seems as though many of the ordinary folk have been comfortable with allowing the political establishment to develop and maintain power until now. The Founding Fathers designed our Democratic Republic to enable ordinary folks to serve in leadership. Perhaps we have "shot ourselved in the foot" by creating a atmosphere in which only the wealthy and those with connections are successful in pursuing political office. This is why people like Sarah Palin have become so popular. She was a Mom that chose to get involved. Jamie Radtke does have some politicial experience, but that I believe was so she could learn about the political establishment and how to manipulate it to bring about positive change that could help the ordinary folk. Frankly, you've got to start somewhere!

Chris, you are right to warn us against just following anyone who claims to be for the ordinary average citizen. This is a card that has been played time and again. Please use your time to get to know Ms. Radtke, and to learn how you personally can do more to develop wise, unselfish, and leadership with integrity within our young people.

Rather than sit back and criticize, we need to continue to work to develop new leadership that is not of the political establishment. Those whose goal is NOT to have a career as a politician, but rather who desire to be true public servants and who are willing to pass the baton of leadership onto others who love their country and their fellow countrymen.

Ms. Cantrell, look at how divisive your comments are. We cannot be isolationists, viewing one state as more important than another simply because it is where one lives! We are all a part of one nation and must help eachother be strong. Some competition between states is good, but luring companies to move from one state to the next just breeds instability. We need to encourage growth from within. Even though you make a good point in wanting to weaken a liberal, socialist state, you really will only hurt the "ordinary man" not those in liberal leadership.

The message of the Tea Party is this: the political establishment has not served us well and has led us into a fiscal and moral mess. It is time for the ordinary folk, the average citizen, to step forward and take a bigger part in the political process by serving and working to uphold the Constitution and the principles it represents. It is time that we fulfill our roles as citizens of the United States as designed by the men who dreamed of a country in which every man is free, but also in which every man cares for and seeks the good of his fellow man. (This is NOT a plug for socialism, but rather simply for the provision of opportunity to better oneself and the protection from those who seek to destroy freedom.) We must do this because that is what our Creator has asked us and taught us to do. There is no society that rejects these principles that will succeed. I pray that these are the principles on which Mrs. Radtke is standing.

[local gop]

"e Founding Fathers designed our Democratic Republic to enable ordinary folks to serve in leadership."

Thats not very accurate considering that originally the only people that could even vote were wealthy white men. I guess women did not count as "ordinary".

[local gop]

"Virginia should embark upon the goal of attracting all the economically viable businesses from the State of Maryland."

The only place that could work is in the DC Metro Area (NOVA). Fairfax County already has 75% of the companies in the area located within its lines. I don't see much more being done there. LG Bolling has the right idea, attracting companies in the hard hit areas. The Beltway is just fine.

[local gop]

I am very confused how Radtke cannot be considered a "career politician" assuming you define that as a person that seeks a career in politics. Having a career in politics is not limited to being an elected official.

Take a look at her resume, all I see is positions held in PACs, and political offices. How is that NOT a career in politics??

[Jennifer Conover]

As I said, change comes slowly. Not all of them were wealthy. Yes, they were white. But they were not royalty. That in itself was a radical change from the rest of the world. These men were the only ones who were educated at the time, and the very fact that they defied the established system of monarchy, encouraged education and allowed even male citizens to vote for leadership was "revolutionary".

It was the system that these "wealthy white men" set up that gradually enabled the slaves to be set free, women the right to vote. Those who fought for freedom for these groups cited the words of the Declaration of Independence. Slavery abounded throughout the world, and women had no leadership unless they were born into it as royalty. The idea of a democratic republic could not be implemented to its fullest extent all at once. Even ancient Rome and Greece, which birthed the idea of a democratic republic, did not grant freedom to every person under its government. Our Founding Fathers were not perfect, but because they sought what was good and true and were willing to fight for it, they succeeded.

Thank you "local gop" for challenging me. I do need to brush up on my history. But do not demonize the Founding Fathers because they were "privileged". Please look at the big picture. Realize that they were initiating a new way of governing that would lead to more freedom for more people. If they had not sought independence and freedom, we would not be having this discussion today.

I also must correct myself...it should read "shot ourselves in the foot" by creating an atmosphere in which THE PERCEPTION IS THAT only the wealthy...

[Jennifer Conover]

I am using "ordinary man" generically. Note that I myself am a woman!

[local gop]

How is pointing out a fact demonizing the Founders? It is a fact that they did not did they allow "ordinary" people to enter the ranks of government leadership. Just as it is a fact that they did not outlaw slavery because of political expedience.

They did do many good things, but they did bad things as well. Pointing out the facts of the situation is in no way demonizing. If we cannot recognize the facts as they stand then we cease the pursuit of knowledge.

The point I am making is that founders were not perfect, they were not deities, and they all had different opinions and philosophies on government. Treating them as all-knowing perfect people that we need to emulate is in my opinion wrong. They did not want us to "worship" them, they wanted us to move on and govern how we deemed appropriate. Thomas Jefferson wanted the very form of government to change every 20 years so as to keep in line with how the people wanted to be governed. How does that indicate that they wanted us to stick with "original intent"?

[Jennifer Conover]

In the same way, I am not worshipping the founding fathers, just acknowledging what they did that was right. They were certainly better individuals that most today. Principles of what is right and wrong cannot be relative. Even if Jefferson wanted the government to change every 20 years, I think he still would have felt the idea of all men (persons)being created equal and endowed with certain inalieable rights was a truth that would need to be incorporated into any government. The founding fathers were ordinary people by the standards of the day, and knew that those who were "beneath" them were not yet ready to assume leadership. Again, I thank you for challenging me, and causing me to go back and review our nations beginnings.

Your statement, local gop, did not sound as if you were particularly fond of wealthy white men. Forgive me for misunderstanding. You were simply pointing out what you believe to be an error in my statement.

What would you like to see happen in this country, local gop? I am interested to hear your thoughts.

[Jennifer Conover]

The use of the term "career politician" probably is not the best way to describe those who seem to be staying in Washington. Mrs. Radtke could probably be called as such. She has worked in politics since her graduation from W & M, and her majors were government and public policy. What I was referring to are those individuals who obtain political leadership and hold onto it forever, who don't really listen to those they govern and seem to be swayed only by $ or personal gain. I hope Jamie won't go that route. I hope she wants to do the right thing for the right reasons.

[Liz Parshall]

Once again local displays his arrogant and self-loathing erudite idiocy. I suppose we need local, if only to serve as a tether to recognize the bizarre.

[Peter Courtenay Stephens]

There is a distinct difference from Career Politician and a career in support of politics or even working in the political sphere.
An example would be someone who works in the Congress behind the scenes. This is a person who works in the political sphere but, not a career politicians like Ted Tennedy, Barney Frank, or John Boehner. These are or were career politicians.
Would a schef at the white House be considered a career politician if they worked there 35 years?
Career politicians are people who are elected to office and stay and stay and stay and stay like the Byrd from West Virginia.
Term limits can answer the career politician argument very satisfactorily.

[local gop]

Liz, contribute or go away.

Jennifer, we should seriously reform contributions to campaigns. Money is the original sin of politics and it has created politicians that are not held accountable because companies fund their campaigns.

[Bob Marshall]

Hopefully if the Tea Party Folks put on a convention in 2011 it will be AFTER the 2011 elections. I went to the convention because I was a speaker, but it took time from campaigning.

But how many workers for Keith Fimian's campaign took the weekend off and went to Richmond for the Tea Party Convention instead of working the neighborhoods in the 11th Congressional DIstrict to beat Gerry Connolly?

Keith lost by about 1,000 votes.

How many Fimian volunteers from Fimian's campaign or who would have been a volunteer went to Richmond for the convention? If there were just 25-30 Fimian volunteers who went to Tea Party Richmond for the weekend there is a real chance they could have picked up enough votes to beat Gerry.

So, please, please, next time, if there is to be a Tea Party convention, just have it far enough away from an election (primary or general) that our hard working volunteers are not pulled from close campaigns.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

Bob, no amount of grassroots campaigning by Tea Party members was going to win that race for Keith. He lost it with his comments about Virginia Tech. He would have won had that not happened.

I do agree, however, that having conventions anytime near an election is just a bad idea. It's hard on candidates, it's hard on activists and it takes attention away from the whole point of the movement - electing people.

Peter, I don't see the difference between a member of Congress who has served for 20 years and the member's chief of staff who has served just as long. They may be a "support person" but they wield a significant amount of power - especially committee staff - and they are just as likely to cause problems in the long run as a member who sits there for far too long.

There's a big difference between the White House Chef, who does nothing politically, and a long-term staff director, chief of staff or legislative director. Those guys almost never leave the Hill, bouncing from one member to another if their bosses lose, or cashing out and going to K Street. They are just as much a career politician as the guy they support.

[Doug Thomas]

Local is a delusional dolt who believes money is the original sin in politics. He would regulate contributions and as a consequence cancel speech so that only self-anointed elites have a voice. People like local and George Soros are peas in pod and dangerous to the body politic. They support only political voices and views that echo their voice. These people are statists and they come in both left and right flavors. Both are equally despicable.

[local gop]

Yes because preventing a company from buying en elected official is so evil. Doug, you're a joke...and probably a troll.

[local gop]

and where does george soros come into the mix? did you just pick a random liberal name and decide to call me that? yeah, that's a real winner...not.

[Patti Williamson]

Who is reviewing the (above) comments? Can we keep it about politics and remove the comments of the children. Thank you

[local gop]

yes lets start censoring people that dont agree with us.