TEA PARTY UNDER SCRUTINY – AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  Christine O'Donnell's victory in Delaware has prompted new debate over the roll of the Tea Party in Republican politics, and, more important, in the nation.  It's what diplomats like to call an "agonizing reappraisal."  Michael Gerson examines the issue in the Washington Post:

Following the primary season, the position of the Republican Party is strong but precarious, like a bodybuilder on a tightrope. Republicans benefit from Tea Party momentum. They suffer from Tea Party victories. As part of a political coalition, the Tea Party movement empowers. As the dominant actor, it alienates.

The problem for Republicans: They have no idea at what level the influence of the Tea Party movement will crest.

Gerson makes plain his displeasure at Delaware:

Delaware's Republican Senate primary defined one possible future. Voters elevated ideological purity above every other political value, including probity, relevant experience and electability. In the process, Republicans wasted an unusual opportunity to win a Senate seat in a heavily Democratic state. One poll reports that just 31 percent of Delaware voters believe Republican nominee Christine O'Donnell is fit to hold public office.

Look, this just can't be denied.  I want O'Donnell to win, but she has more baggage than Samsonite.  An article in today's Politico quotes former O'Donnell staffers, and it's devastating.  It will be used against her effectively.

But the primary season told other stories. Sen. John McCain's trouncing of J.D. Hayworth showed that the Tea Party label does not guarantee success for buffoonish candidates. In a number of states, mainstream conservatives turned aside Tea Party challenges and are now propelled by political winds that once threatened to capsize their candidacies. One Tea Party hero -- Marco Rubio -- has turned out to be a strong candidate and likely Republican star.

So the picture is mixed.

And...

A Republican Party propelled by Tea Party enthusiasm is headed toward victory. A Republican Party dominated by Tea Party ideology would be pure, disturbing -- and small.

This is a very thoughtful piece, and I commend it to you.  Movements can generate enormous enthusiasm, but they are often run by people who have little talent for governing and little tolerance for the fact that what may sell in one part of the country can be poison somewhere else.

The Democratic Party is run by zealous groups that have brought it to its current ridiculous position.  Consider the zealots in teachers' unions who have paralyzed the party's role in education.  I don't want to see that happen in the GOP.  I also recall the Adlai Stevenson crowd within the Democratic Party in the 1950s.  They demanded a second presidential nomination for Stevenson in 1956, and tried even to get him a third in 1960, despite overwhelming evidence that he was unelectable.  They liked his intellectual style, which was everything to them.

Elections are about winning.  There's no prize for second place.  As Gerson points out, the Tea Party, while producing victories in some House races, might be responsible for the Republicans not winning the Senate, depriving the GOP of committee chairmanships that could be instrumental in shaping the fate of the nation.

The GOP faces a common, but bitter dilemma – how to accept support but prevent a takeover.  The master of that art was Ronald Reagan, who always kept a distance even from movements that supported him.  He learned the lesson from FDR, who did the same.  Accept their support, limit their influence.  It's a strategy to remember.

September 17, 2010