Dueling TX-8 Teabaggers

                 Russell                                                                        Baker

What does a debate between two teabaggers look like?

That was the question that I was in my head as I went to the recent debate of the Republican candidates for the 8th Congressional District. Incumbent and usual teabag panderer, Rep. Kevin Brady failed to show. I guess he was a little scared from his previous encounter with the teabaggers up at the pizza joint in Conroe.

So that left us with Tyler Russell and Scott Baker, both teabaggers who have taken the oath to support Glenn Beck's 9/12 cult.

After today's news that the Tea Party actually polls better than the Republican Party on a generic ballot, I was wondering how much trouble the Tea Party candidates will pose to incumbents like Brady. Could they really do some political damage, or at least make guys like Brady blow a bunch of money in defense? The performance at the debate would surely give me a clue.

Unfortunately, I was unpleasantly surprised. About 50 people showed up, hardly the large turnouts that they claim at their actual Tea Parties. I guess if you can't bring your Obama=Hitler signs with you, it just takes all the fun out of the event. What respectable teabagger wants to go to a stuffy "establishment" event like a debate? But, I digress.

All that I knew about the candidates was that both were Air Force veterans and fairly young (Russell is 28 and Baker is 34). Baker started out his statement with some pretty typical teabag fare. Then, came Russell's turn. "I'm Tyler Russell and I'm running to be your next Congressman" he exclaimed with his high-pitched screech. Yikes. A few people actually laughed out loud.

He then rattled on with the usual drivel. The debate went on, with questions directed from the audience, not from the moderator. While both candidates sounded like they were reading from a Heritage Foundation handout (they literally did a few times), Russell's drivel was more of the hard line, doctrinaire sort. He looks at compromise as total capitulation and thinks if he just shows up to Washington and sticks to his "conservative principles" that everyone will see the light and fall into line. Baker, while offering similar hyperbole, is the more moderate or practical (if you can even say that) of the teabaggers. Yes, apparently the teabag comes in a few flavors.

For instance, while Baker says we may need to reduce some of the unfunded mandates of the U.S. Department of Education, Russell says we should just abolish the entire Department, regardless of the consequences. Where Baker says we should go after employers who employ illegal immigrants, Russell says we should send them all back to their country of origin. We'll be covering more of the actual substance of their debate in a later post.

All in all, looking purely through the teabag prism, I'd have to say that Scott Baker won the debate. He was far more articulate than Tyler Russell and his answers, while still pretty nutty, seemed thought out. Russell's delivery was terrible. He stumbled around and didn't seem to know what he was talking about, calling border guards "INS agents" when the INS doesn't even exist anymore and even if it did, they don't guard the border.  Every now and again he would employ some blatantly obvious maneuver to throw in one of his great personal attributes, which is only good politics if you are smooth at it. After each question, he'd puff up like a chicken getting ready to lay an egg and seemed a tad bit too emotional. He came off as a big braggart whose ideological fervor crowds out any shred of pragmatism. Political beliefs aside, he's not the kind of guy you want representing you in Congress.

All in all, it's really a shame. If the teabaggers could mount a decent challenge to Kevin Brady, they might actually come close to beating him in a Republican primary. Stranger things have happened and I think many Republicans are underestimating the grassroots power that these groups have in a primary. But instead, they have split their teabag vote amongst two candidates, neither of whom possess the stature or skills to beat Kevin Brady.

And that's more of a reason why it was a shame that Kevin Brady didn't show up tonight. He claims he has votes on Monday night, but I think he truly was recollecting his previous scuffles with the tea zealots. Had he been there tonight, I'm sure it would have been less akin to a Jr. High debate, and more akin to a conservative form of mud wrestling.