Bachmann is scary, Tea Party not the answer, is Obama worst ever?

One of the scarier developments of this early presidential cycle has been the emergence of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann as a leading contender for the GOP nomination in 2012. Bachman recently placed first in the influential straw poll in Iowa. While it doesn't necessarily predict the eventual nominee, it does help candidates guage their level of support among some of the party's most ardent supporters, and helps narrow the field. Already, it has claimed its first victim in former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who was the first candidate in, and is now the first to drop out. What makes Bachmann so worrisome is her adherence to the "Tea Party" brand of Republicanism. Despite having a largely uneventful tenure in Congress -- to date, she hasn't passed or cosponsored a single bill -- she was one of the first in the House to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon. She rose to prominence based largely on positioning herself as the spokesman for the movement in Congress and by founding the House Tea Party Caucus. The Tea Party is a relatively new political movement. It was founded in 2009. Still, it has quickly asserted itself within the mainstream of the Republican Party. Already the movement has helped elect several candidates to Congress and veteran politicans are actively seeking Tea Party endorsements. So does the Tea Party have what it takes to be a viable, long-term political movement, or even a third political party? From where I sit, I don't think so. In the first place, the Tea Party lacks a central organization. Instead, it is a loose-knit coalition of individual local and state groups. I have long advocated for the creation of a third major political party. That's because it seems to me that both of our existing parties have become almost indistinguishable from each other. Whereas Republicans once stood for being pro-business and for smaller government and lower taxes, and Democrats stood for the working class, these days, it seems both parties have forgotten their roots and what they stood for. The recent debt ceiling debate is proof of that. Instead of having well-defined ideologies, it seems to me that both parties are all about gaining and keeping power. Sure, they might play to their perceived base around election time, but the truth is, American voters don't really have a viable alternative anymore when it comes to electing our leaders. That being said, the Tea Party is not the answer. The truth is, the Tea Party is nothing more than a flash in the pan, a reaction to Republican anger over President Barack Obama's efforts at health care reform. And like most political fads -- anyone remember the Reform Party from the early 1990s? -- it will fade away once voters grow tired of the extreme rhetoric, or it will be replaced by something else. One final thought. It has been said that Barack Obama is the worst president in American history. To that, I say, what short memories we have. How soon we forget recent history. In my mind, the honor of "worst president" belongs to George W. Bush. In his two terms, he singlehandedly wrecked our economy, got us into two undeclared wars and tarnished our reputation worldwide through his unspoken endorsement of torture. While not everyone might agree with everything Obama has done during his first term, it pays to remember that he has spent a great deal of time trying to rectify Bush's mistakes. It also pays to remember that while not everything he has tried has worked as advertised, voters should at least give him credit for thinking outside the box and being willing to try new things. Contrast that with Republicans, who have spent the last three years complaining and trying to undermine the president instead of coming up with ideas of their own. It seems to me the logical thing if Republicans are so unhappy with what Obama is doing is to come up with viable alternatives to present to the American voters. Otherwise, they're just being obstructionist and they need to shut up and get on board.