I don't understand your problem with the Tea party. You have complained for a long time about how the system is broken, and now here is a real alternative AND one that is in sync with what you write about economics and the financial system especially the Federal Reserve. But you seem to reject it because of minor points about how the Tea party started. If the issues you write about are really important to you, what other group do you think is going to come along and focus on them as much as the Tea party has? It seems like this is something you should be able to support.
I sympathize with the Tea Party movement in some ways -- more and more, actually, as Obama's unforgivable lack of interest in financial reform becomes obvious almost two years after Bear Stearns. I also agree that the country desperately needs a viable third party. Here's the problem. This is a movement in which someone can hold up a sign saying "Reform the Fed" next to a sign of Obama as a witch doctor or Nazi. Any sort of strident criticism of the Fed has always had a conspiracist tint, and it's taken years of work by Ron Paul and others to overcome that. Demanding a Fed audit one moment and Obama's birth certificate the next doesn't exactly help the cause. It makes it easier for Bernanke and the Fed's supporters to defend against an audit and other measures as "being pushed by nuts," and they are doing that right now.
If the Tea movement wants to attract more independent-minded voters and generally make itself more viable nationally, it's going to have to grow up (from its admittedly young chronological age) and decide what it wants to be. Part of that means finding a way to distance itself from the fringe and unserious elements -- and that includes Sarah Palin -- that limit its appeal. Since the movement seems to both revel in those elements and define itself by decentralization and inclusivity, this probably won't happen soon.
As I explained at the top of this post a few days ago, I also object to the movement's hypocritical roots. It's undeniable that many Tea Partiers are simply opportunists whose interest in the issues they hold dear coincided strangely with 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009. If a Republican wins in 2012 will that interest fade just as quickly? Until it proves otherwise, the Tea movement is basically an ideological slush fund whose allocation and disbursements depend more on political expediency than intellectual honesty.