Why is a “conservative candidate” or “Tea Party Candidate” label a bad thing?

It’s not surprising that the liberal, main stream media continues to bash conservative, Tea Party candidates, because those candidates are in complete opposition to the liberal agenda pushed by major media outlets.  However, what remains somewhat surprising is why the Republican establishment has not only failed to embrace this new Republican blood, but at times goes as far as attacking it.

Multiple polls have shown that a significant portion of American voters either consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, or at minimum state they relate to the agenda that the Tea Party promotes.

One of the major problems is that most Tea Party members are in favor of limited government and spending, and feel that there is currently little difference between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  Many of them espouse a “flip the House” philosophy where by EVERY member of Congress would be replaced, not just Democrats.  It’s this fiscally conservative mindset, as compared to Republican mindset, that has led to many independents, and even Democrats, being attracted to the Tea Party movement.

Dick Morris discusses the myth of conservative vulnerability and explains why in today’s environment being a fiscal conservative is a quality many Americans are attracted to:

Yesterday’s primary victories of O’Donnell in Delaware, and DioGuardi in New York illustrates how the Tea Party is cleansing the Republican Party and installing true believers over professional politicians. It is a healthy trend that will continue to recreate the Party of Reagan.

But the conventional media, instead of hailing this trend, warns that conservatives cannot be elected and bemoans the victory of true believers saying that it is equivalent to handing seats to the Democrats and the liberals. This reasoning, which made sense in other times, is badly flawed in today’s political climate.

…

[T]hese days, social issues are in remission and economic/fiscal problems have, understandably, taken center stage. In this environment, purists of the right have a big advantage because nobody doubts the sincerity with which they embrace the goals of limited government, low taxes, and reduced spending. Politicians of all stripes – including most Democrats – vow allegiance to them as does the overwhelming majority of the electorate. In this environment, the distinctions of left and right give way to the difference between sincerity and insincerity, leaving the voters to judge. With candidates like Sharron Angle in Nevada or Christine O’Donnell in Delaware or DioGuardia in New York, voters don’t have to guess. They know real conservatives when they see them.

Rather than attacking candidates like O’Donnel, the GOP leadership should be embracing them.  It is the Tea Party and other grass-roots conservative movements that have created the huge enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democratic voters, NOT some new found love for the Republican party.

One of the Republican leadership’s greatest fears was that Tea Party candidates would run as third party candidates, not as Republicans, which would in most cases split the vote — handing winnable elections to the Democrats.  The Tea Party backers and candidates did their part, and backed candidates on Republican tickets.  However, the big-government, Republican establishment has not been upholding their end of the bargain.

If the Republican party doesn’t start to embrace the will of the people, the conservative, small-government candidates supported by the Tea Party and other conservative movements, they may find themselves facing 3rd party candidates in 2012.