The Republican "Revolution"

Wednesday's top AP story was about the Republican "revolution" and how Democrats hoped to take advantage of it. There are several unreported aspects of this story. The biggest is that the Democrats had their own "revolution" a few years ago led by the Progressives and the Netroots. Consider the parallels:

Both revolutions called for a return to the values of the party's most memorable leader - FDR for the Democrats and Reagan for the Republicans. Both movements disdained moderates in their own party.

In both cases an organization operating outside of the official party gained influence over which candidates would be on the ballot. The Netroots spent as much on the 2008 presidential election as the Democrats did. Obviously the Tea Party has had a major effect on the Republican candidates in 2010.

Both revolutions turned out long-time incumbents who did not toe their line. In 2006, the Netroots turned on Joe Lieberman because of his support for Bush's wars. He lost the primary but ran as a 3rd party candidate and retained his senate seat. Several conventional Republicans have been defeated in the primaries. Prior to the current Republican surge, the Netroots led by the DailyKOS were threatening to defeat Yellow Dog Democrats.

The importance of the Netroots and the resurgence of the Progressives within the Democrat cannot be understated. They is why Barrack Obama is president today rather than Hillary Clinton. It remains to be seen if the Tea Party will have a similar effect on the 2012 Republican candidate.

There are some major differences between the two movements. The Netroots were much better funded and organized. They made heavy use of the Internet ("Netroots" stands for Internet Grassroots). The Tea Party has resisted traditional organization. Some people, like Sarah Palin, are influential within the Tea Party but they are not true leaders. Also, much more of the Tea Party takes place in the open. George Soros provided major funding to the Netroots but few people know his name.

The Tea Party is often portrayed as over-the-top conservative - so conservative that they will turn off the average voter. The current Democratic strategy is to refer to their opposition as "Tea Party Republicans" to try to capitalize on this. This presents a risk to the Republicans but consider the alternatives. The previous Democrat strategy has been to try to tie current Republicans to former President Bush and to characterize them as the "Party of 'no' with nothing new to offer."

The Tea Party gives the Republicans a chance to offer something new. Much of the country is worried about the growing deficit. Deficit worries propelled Ross Perot's 3rd-party candidacy in 1992 and the Democrats promised to reduce the deficit in 2006 and 2008. Bush Republicans have no credibility on this issue but Reagan Republicans do.

Without the Tea Party, the Republican's pitch to be returned to power is reduced to this.