President McCain ...

While the historical references of Buchanan and Perot you listed are nearly all correct, I find your projections as to what the GOP must now do & what the Tea Party represents, misguided. Were this argument of merit, we would have what my subject title suggests. Look, I have heard this argument time and again, that we must be "for" something rather than against. That the Teat Party is "angry", and that doesn't win votes, etc.

"Movements like the Tea Party can be as grass-root as they come, but the prospects is always there that they will split the vote ..."

The problem here is the facts to date don't bare this out. The Tea Party's focus thus has been the GOP primary. I will list Marc Rubio as an example. This is a 38 year old Florida House Representative whom has come from double digits behind to a double digit lead versus his fellow party member Charlie Crist, a popular governor and staple of Florida politics. And the primary reason (if you'll forgive the pun) for Rubio's rise has been the proper channeling of the Tea Party energy, or "anger." Chris Wallace hosted a debate between the two primary contestants just today and described what many people have been saying, that Rubio could be the first "Tea Party Senator." And do you know what Crist had a hard time ruling out when asked (Wallace rephrased it no less than 4 times in an attempt to get a straight answer)? Running as an Independent. The incumbent, establishment candidate was having to answer to that discussion, not Rubio. The Tea Party has taken to heart, in my estimation, the Reagan mantra that, "what we need is a revitalized Republican Party, not a third Party." And in that vein I feel the advice of being an "incumbent" rather than a "conservative" counter intuitive. This is a center-right nation on most issues. Reagan emphasized, "no dull pastels but bold contrasts" when urging politicians across the fruited plain to unapologetically embrace conservatism. Which seems to me something the Tea Party has also embraced.

I think gentlemen like Card, lifetime Democrats, find the Tea Party movement unpalatable. And while they may agree with them on substance their "style" and tenor is objected to, thus they employ logic just a little too clever by half in order to find a "viable" critique. I've seen this behavior repeated with bright, blue dog democrats more than once. My response to "anger doesn't win elections", is that angry candidates don't win elections. Think about what Obama did. The anger on the left after Bush was immeasurable - and Obama smiled, took their energy, and ran with it.

So let me summarize ... what is missing here is NOT, in my opinion, the need for the Tea Party to moderate its' anger in order to attract independents (its' growing exponentially on its own). It is NOT for us to embrace the art of compromise in a watered down "McCain way." Reagan's "big tent" was big because he attracted independents and Democrats to CONSERVATIVE ideals, not because he watered them down enough to make them palatable. We all agree that the GOP has a golden opportunity here. And everyone has advice on how to capitalize on it. And in my opinion the "missing link" is the GOP's ABSOLUTE LACK of an attractive candidate thus far. The Tea Party, the angry independents, the unhappy Dems, we ALL want a more conservative agenda for America. But it isn't up to the Tea Party nor any other group to moderate its' tone. It will not work for GOP leaders to scold the Tea Party, "keep it down over there." It is up to an ambitious, articulate, heart felt individual to channel that passion into a electoral movement. Reagan didn't walk around angry, I agree. He did something much worse to Carter - he took all the anger over Jimmy, all the angst, all the pissed off feelings and made Carter into a punch line, an incompetent. He was someone whom had the ability to turn the idea of "deficit neutral Trillion dollar programs" into a joke. History shows us that all this anger, all the palpable energy, all the protest gatherings and sign making, that it is PRECISELY this type of behavior which will provide an effective leader the momentum he or she needs. A person whom can channel it, a man whom fights with a smile on his face as Churchill once quipped. I find all this "anger" necessary to produce such a candidate, so when an FDR or a Reagan comes along with a smile, a stinging comedic observation of his opponent, and an alternative path, all that "anger" gets poured and channeled as fuel for electoral success. So I say let a thousand protest signs be made! Let the Tea Party chant and yell. For when a conservative who CAN fight with a smile on their face comes along, we will NEED that energy, and he will be propelled into landslide victories.