if these are the kind of people the tea party is embracing (as supporters and/or leaders), I can only take that as a clear message that rationalist fiscal conservatives are simply not welcome.
Unless we're talking about "palling around" with Hitler, what sane political movement has tried to alienate its supporters?
"Simply not welcome" is, I think, an overly strong claim on your part. Quite the contrary, it seems the issue is that they're so welcoming of even lukewarm fiscaly conservative allies that they're willing to overlook quite a number of other glaring issues. And to some extent, yes, this big tent hurts them to some extent because, given how much the media dislikes the movement, they will be painted with the stigma of the most controversial among them. The problem, as I see it, is that fiscally conservative elected politicians are in desperately short supply. Look at Schwarzenegger out here in California. He ran on a platform of fiscal conservativism and the unions absolutely rolled him once he was elected, to the point that he was spending campaign donations to push for higher taxes. Schwarzenegger re-instated the car tax that he campaigned against, and so on. If a Californian wants to vote for a fiscally conservative representative here they have virtually no selection among incumbents. Nationally, George W. Bush pushed for Medicare Part D and dramatically increased the debt. A fiscally conservative representative is a man(or woman) who is voting himself a pay cut in terms of power, and the pickings are pretty slim. Far from such people not being welcome by "Tea Partiers", it seems that they're desperately hard to find among incumbent elected officials. And with many Republicans unwilling to keep their campaign promises, the movement is dead in the water unless such allies are found, or else elected into office.
I haven't had a chance to go to one of the rallies yet, but I've posted articles from an organizer who sounded like a rational fiscal conservative. John and Ken on KFI out here in the LA area seem like pretty strong rational classic liberals, which is a fiscally conservative philosophy and they've devoted a ton of air time to organizing.
If you're a rationalist fiscal conservative, shouldn't you also hope for your own sake that I'm right? Or are you just concern trolling here?
As for consequences, I believe I've explained myself quite thoroughly. If you insist on responding to what you think I wrote instead of what I actually wrote (hint: the part about newcomers, having no record to speak of, needing to win my trust and instead, associating ("palling around" perhaps? =P) with the worst kind of politicians and media hacks - leaders or not)).
I read that. Should the "Tea Partiers" have protested coverage by Fox News? Would that have served them? "Guilt by Association" seems to be a standard diametrically opposed to a realpolitik standard of "what are the consequences?" They have to earn your trust by producing good results. Fair enough. You don't want to jump on the bandwagon until a lot of others have gotten it rolling. But you write like they've already lost your trust. That seems to me, at best, premature. I'm not a fan of Fox News in general. Their coverage of scientific topics is godawful. But I'm certainly a fan of any coverage that they give to economically conservative issues. ...and the Soviet Union did some good in bringing down Hitler during WWII, in part with American provided supplies. etc. etc. and so on.
As Churchill once quipped "If Hitler Invaded Hell, I Would At Least Make A Favorable Reference To The Devil In The House Of Commons."