The Tea Party presents itself as a grassroots, jus’ folks, not-gonna-take-it-any-more uprising, consisting of regular people who were so fed up after several weeks of Barack Obama’s presidency that they just couldn’t take it anymore and they just had to do something.
But that’s basically the opposite of what we’re seeing here in the fifth congressional district, where at least two of the Republican candidates are just rich guys self-financing their campaigns. Lawrence Verga was the first to do it. Having just moved to the district, he’s totally certain that he should be in charge. We can see that not many other people agree with him, since he’s had to give his campaign $226,579 just to get it off the ground. (A bunch of that went to Joe the Unlicensed Plumber to buy an endorsement.) The rest of his money—a grand total of $11,025—came from thirteen people, eight of whom live in the district, $6,250 in all.
Now Jim McKelvey has given his campaign a half million dollars, too. Haven’t heard of McKelvey? Well, that’s basically his problem in a nutshell. But, don’t worry, he’s got other supporters. Well, another supporter, singular. A Roanoke packaging salesman who gave him a grand.
For comparison, Feda Kidd Morton—for my money, far and away the most unhinged candidate in this race, and definitely the most vocal—has raised $14,301 from a grand total of seventeen people. I’ve worked on congressional campaigns in the pre-primary phase, and watched closely many more. Seventeen people contributing is not good. Seventeen people pledging $14,301 is cause to consider entering the race. Several months into the race, those kind of numbers are cause to pack up and go home.
But what’s even worse is McKelvey and Verga who, in dollar values or number of contributions, are in terrible shape when compared to the wretchedly unsupported Morton. (These three are the only candidates who have filed their reports yet. They’re due Sunday. No doubt some of those will be equally revealing.) As I’ve written, there’s nothing wrong with candidates contributing to their own campaigns. But when they use their money as a substitute for actual support, or to provide the appearance of support where there is none, that’s a sign of a fatally flawed campaign. In 2001 Mark Warner pumped millions into his own race, but not until October, and not as a means of feigning support, but to supplement his own already-healthy coffers.
With these kinds of numbers from candidates desperately jostling to be the Tea Party darling, it’s awfully tough to why in the world they’d want to tie themselves to such a wretchedly ineffective group. Given the well-lined pockets of McKelvey and Verga, the reality of Tea Party dynamics is becoming clear: they’re exactly like any other party. They talk a good game about being salt-of-the-earth types, but it’s the rich folks who run for office, trying to blend in with their supporters. The trouble is that their supporters don’t have any money. They’re just the proletariat, so star-struck by ostensible politicians listening to them—so utterly naïve about the political process—that they’ll hang teabags from their ears to demand that the government cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans who, not coincidentally, are the very politicians standing in front of them.
We’ve got a word for that: suckers.
As someone following this race, I’d say that your take on Feda being the most unhinged is wrong, but for the rest of the post, I agree. These tea party people don’t get it.
(But fix the html… the good stuff is broken.)
My only exposure to these candidates is reading news coverage, reading their press releases, and listening to the audio from their recent debate. Morton routinely strikes me as the candidate whose grasp of the realities of the world are the weakest, who displays the most political naïveté, and who most eagerly parrots conservative talking points. (That, of course, is ignoring Bradley Rees, since I don’t know what what he’s doing. It’s not clear to me if he’s even still in the race. God, I hope so.) Who is it that you think is ahead of Morton in this particular competition?
Thanks for catching the HTML error, Michael! Someday I’ll learn that proofing something and then making more changes means that another round of proofing has become necessary. :)
Well, yes… Rees is always, uh, interesting to read, to say the least.
Would it be fair to qualify the candidates into 3 groups at this point? The sane, legit politicos: Hurt, Boyd; the Skousers (not to be confused with scousers (those damn Liverpudlians), but rather those who engorge and espouse W. Cleon Skousen): McPadden, McKelvey, Morton; and the I’mSorryWhatWasThats: Verga, Ferrin
I’ve got another theory/comparison. Time for a new comment box. :-)
With 7 candidates, it time for an obligatory comparison:
*Skipper: Good-natured leader who might be a little in-over-his-head, but is trying to do the best he can in an awkward situation, played by Ken Boyd
*Gilligan: Good-natured guy who likely is in-over-his-head, “not a deep thinker”, people can’t quite get his last name right, played by Ron Ferrin
*Ginger: The Hollywood star, straight out of central casting, good-looking, considers [him]self above the fray, growing question among viewers is choosing between two contrasting types: Ginger or Mary Ann?, played by Robert Hurt
*Professor: The most intellectual of the bunch, always ready with some philosophical insight, might be able to make a radio from a coconut, but may not even be able to fix a hole in the boat to rescue this, played by Mike McPadden
*Mary Ann: The “girl next door”, tries hard, ready to get down and dirty, big rivalry with Ginger, played by Feda Morton
*Thurston Howell III: Moneybags, will try and buy himself out of rough waters, little known about backstory, played by Jim McKelvey
*Lovey Howell: Slightly less moneybags, caring but jealous, not really from this island, sometimes seems confused, played by Laurence Verga
*Harlem Globetrotters: WTF are you doing here?, played by Bradley Rees
Thoughts? Anything I missed/got wrong?
See, If I had my own blog, I’d have done a photoshop of their faces on a cast picture, but I don’t.
Anyone want to help?
I’m sad that no one likes my Gilligan’s Island analogy. :-(
Don’t be sad, Michael. I loved it. I sent the link to all of my friends.