Was Brat Really a TEA Party Candidate?

Almost every article I've read is giving credit to "the TEA party" for Brat's upset win over Eric Cantor. First of all, for those who don't know, there is no ONE TEA party. Even the large groups who get funds from only God knows where, but I'd guess the GOP, are divided in their focuses and targets. Most of the small unattached local TEA parties that I am aware of fund themselves and determine their own agendas. NOT ONE of the large TEA parties gave Brat even a dime for his campaign.

I heard a representative from one of these parties on TV last night and she said her group is focused on the Senate races and that is why they didn't give to Brat. I can see the rationalization of funding Senate races because to take the Senate will be of major importance if we are to turn this country around and get it heading in the right direction again. So, maybe I will buy her story. But what about the rest of the groups? Where were they? Obviously they had no interest in unseating Cantor or they would have been there for him. A TEA party that doesn't see the problem that Cantor presented might not should be calling themselves a TEA party.

Today I came across this article attached below by Ann Coulter. Finally! Someone has pointed out the elephant in the room, or lack of elephants in the room if we consider the big parties are a faction of the GOP umbrellas. She says it better than I can, to quote excerpts:

"This marks the first time a U.S. House majority leader has ever lost a primary election.

His crushing defeat reinforces a central point: Whenever the voters know an election is about immigration, they will always vote against more immigration -- especially amnesty.

Cantor spent more than $5 million on his campaign. Brat spent less than $150,000. But Brat made the election about Cantor's support for amnesty, so he won.

The pro-amnesty crowd -- i.e., everyone except the American people -- promptly lost its collective mind. The amnesty shills went on the attack, insisting that Cantor's historic defeat had nothing to do amnesty. Brat's triumph was touted as simply a victory for the "tea party."

Of course, these are the same people who also try to persuade us that amnesty isn't "amnesty," illegal aliens aren't "illegal aliens" (they're "undocumented workers"!), and that there are 30 million jobs Americans won't do at any price.

In fact, however, the tea party had nothing to do with Brat's victory. Only the small, local tea party groups stand for anything anymore, but they're as different from the media-recognized "tea party" as lay Catholics are from the Catholic bishops.

National tea party groups did not contribute dime one to Brat. Not Freedom Works, not Club for Growth, not the Tea Party Express, not Tea Party Patriots. They were too busy denouncing Sen. Mitch McConnell -- who has consistently voted against amnesty.

As I have been warning you, the big, national tea party groups are mostly shysters and con-men raising money for their own self-aggrandizement. (Today, they're blast-faxing "media availability" notices to television networks claiming credit for Brat's victory.)

The Tea Party Express, for example, "represents" the views of ordinary Americans by supporting Chamber of Commerce demands for cheap labor through amnesty.

As Eric Hoffer said, "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

Nonetheless, the claim that Brat's victory was a win for the tea party is everywhere -- pushed with suspicious insistence by people who do not usually wish the Republican Party well. Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz, for example, said: "Tonight's result in Virginia settles the debate once and for all -- the tea party has taken control of the Republican Party. Period."

Liberals apparently want Brat's victory to be seen as a win for the tea party, and not a defeat for amnesty."

READ MORE->