John Boehner leaves me cold

John Boehner gave us an unfortunate look into the Republican revolution when he said it was "too early" to talk specifics regarding spending cuts. Sounds a bit like "you'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." In a year when Republican are running against Executive arrogance and 'Chicago-style politics,' Boehner's remarks constitute seriously competitive arrogance.

The hostility toward Washington evidenced in the polls, in the reluctance to invest or hire and in the Tea Party movement will no doubt sweep Republicans into the House majority. The Tea Party phenomenon will benefit the Republican electoral effort. Boehner is making a mistake if he reads the Tea Party folks as either patient or loyal. Their short term bet is on the Republican horse. But they won't ride that horse twice if he doesn't dial that attitude back a piece.

Voters have been angry before. The Perot movement in 1992 garnered 19 million votes in the general election. Perot received over 20 percent of the vote in 25 states, over 25 percent in 10 states.

In 1968 George Wallace carried five Southern states and garnered some 46 electoral votes. In states that he didn't win, he received 28.5 percent of the total in Florida,31.3 percent in North Carolina and 34 percent in Tennessee. Neither effort was really a serious pursuit of the office.

In the end, the Wallace voters were merely afforded a chance to vote against Humphrey without voting for Nixon. The Perot voters were able to vote against Bush without voting for Clinton.

People no longer remember that Eugene McCarthy was the leading vote-getter in the Democratic primaries in 1968 although he did not come close to getting the nomination.

What did we learn from history? We learned that 20 percent of the voters are prepared to go outside the Democrat and Republican parties to vote for president. We learned that demographic appeals can potentially unearth electoral votes and most importantly, in McCarthy’s case, that a party can be dragged reluctantly toward the sentiments of the grassroots.

Frankly, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were hardly charismatic or visionary individuals. They were one-trick ponies and not exactly models of ethics or towers of emotional stability. What happens if the anger attaches itself to a more solid person, a Mike Pence or a Condi Rice or a Bill Bennett. What happens if a Paul Tsongas-type Democrat doesn't want to wait until 2016?

The most interesting distinction between the Tea Party movement and the followers of the aforementioned is that this attention is directed at the Congress, especially at the House where the spending originates. That tells me that the disenchanted may be in it for the long haul.

Will the Tea Party be around as a third party alternative in four years? Probably not. If it survives as an ideological movement, it may enable the birth of a credible third party or support the election prospects of Libertarian-leaning and Independent candidates both in and outside the main parties. It can continue to cull the ranks of Democrat and Republican candidates who disdain the voter's wishes. They will remain a potent force in national politics if they remain ‘beholden to no one.

This much is certain. The blinding loyalty of the Tea Party supporters to Republicans in this election cycle is simply a 'no other card to play' phenomenon. The Democrats clearly don't want to be contaminated by associating with the Tea Party types. If Boehner and his ilk cannot talk the details of entitlement reform and real spending cuts now, the day is never coming.

Just trust me and we’ll get into the details after the election. This is a bad play for Republicans. If you can’t be brave campaigning, why should voters expect you to be brave governing. For all their many flaws, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were brave campaigners. In another lifetime, we called that honesty.