I’ll highlight the key word in the key grafs in Politico’s latest drooling about a mythical proactive third party candidacy:
Despite their seemingly left-wing orientation, the Occupy Wall Street protestors have explicitly avoided any partisan reference. They blame both parties for what many protestors call the rigged financial system.
Similarly, the tea party movement — which has already demonstrated an unprecedented level of activism and influence during the 2010 midterms, as well as in the debt ceiling debate – continues to advocate for policies that reinforce core constitutional principles. They are seeking to reduce the size and scope of government.
Ah, yes, so people who believe that the power and privilege of our Galtian overlords needs to be reduced deep down share common cause with people who believe that our Galtian overlords need huge tax cuts and even less regulation. I think I understand why the rest of the column is about how many people like the idea of an unspecified third party in theory, without wondering if this support will hold up once “that agrees with me about everything” is off the table. And of course
Steve Zandar is right that the point here is to split the Democratic coalition, since the Tea Partiers are just orthodox conservative Republicans. The idea that our “core constitutional values” were defined by Gilded Age Supreme Courts is the other key giveaway here.