The Tea Party’s not even warm for Ron Paul, and CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield asks Dick Armey why that’s so. Armey doesn’t speak for every Tea Party group (Banfield’s introduction actually inflates his role within that movement).

Still, why?

Although I don’t think Paul’s libertarian enough, that shouldn’t stop the Tea Parties from favoring him over, say, Newt Gingrich on ideological grounds.

Reason’s Brian Doherty posits that this is because Tea Party supporters are not so libertarian, and that’s partly right.

They’re libertarian on some issues, conservative on others, and simply Republican on other matters. There’s no criticism implied; this assessment is descriptive, only. If they were very libertarian, they’d be libertarians (or even Libertarians).

But there’s a more practical reason, that likely separates Tea Party supporters from libertarians: Republicans and Democrats expect to win elections, and that’s part of the appeal of a major party. If many Tea Party members have traditionally voted for a major party (where both major parties win a good amount of the time), a true third-party position must seem impractical and unappealing.

Libertarians advocate to win, but routinely settle for being a political corrective to larger parties’ actions. I’d guess that Tea Party adherents are more accustomed to winning with a major party than Libertarians have ever been, and naturally like being part of a winning side.

That goal is hard to relinquish.