Do you think the Conservatives and Tea party should split off from the main stream GOP and create their own political party.
Absolutely not. For both practical and ideological political reasons.
First, the practical. By fragmenting the "right voting" base in a significant degree you basically are assuring a number of election cycles where the chances of any right leaning voice to win is slim to none. You basically would need to be willing for anywhere from 4 to 20 years of left leaning control of government as a shift occurs where this "new" party is actually on equal enough footing to be a significant and legitimate challenge.
You speak about some of the reasons why you think it'd work well and quickly. You name business as one. It's true, compared to more moderate and "establishment" GOP types, many in the Tea Party movement want less regulation. On the flip side, they also want less government subsidies going to businesses as well. Believing that you're going to win over the business vote in such a split, especially immedietely, is not realistic imho.
Additionally, name recognition matters. Branding matters. It's the case in almost every form of advertising, including political. The Republican Party has name recognition as a national party far more than anything the Conservative/Tea Party would be able to put together. When it comes time for the big elections, at least in the near term, those who don't keep up with politics closely are going to likely see this party as nothing but a run of the mill third party...destined to not win. The standard thought process of people is "republicans = Right leaning vote that matters".
If you're willing to lose multiple electoin cycles in the name of theoritically assured ideological purity than it'd be a worth while endevour. However, by doing so you may create a situation where you've allowed the country to move so far to the left as you've ceeded election after election to the Democrats that there's little you can really do by that point.
However, the problem is that there's pitfalls ideologically as well...
The Tea Party fails as a
POLITICAL PARTY (which thankfully, by and large, it doesn't try to be) because it's core tennets that connect the movement do not cover everything a political parties platform needs to hold. There are a number of wedge issues, abortion and gay marriage amongst them, that the core planks of the tea party movement don't touch on. The reason the Tea Party was successful as a movement in 2010 was becuase it was a congressional cycle, allowing multiple candidates that shared a common baseline but whose supporting views were able to be matched to the locality that they were running in. The reason the Tea Party was significantly less successful in 2012 was because it was a Presidential cycle which nationalizes the message. Suddenly, instead of each local Tea Party group being able to get behind a candidate whose ancillary views were tailored to their regional care you needed the entire movement nation wide to get behind one candidate....and that didn't happen.
Why?
Because while the members of the TPM all share common values and thoughts regarding fiscal and governmental issues, there was a great divide (partially based on region) when it came to ancillary issues. And for some TPM members, those ancillary issues were as important, if not MORE important, than the planks of the Tea Party movement. So while a Tea Party member down in Alabama may've loved Rick Santorum, one in Vermont probably couldn't stomach him due to his social views. While a TPM in Nevada may've liked Ron Paul's stance regarding the military, one in Virginia may've detested it.
You'd run into the same issue with a "Conservative" or "Tea Party" party. You're not going to get everyone that views themselves as a "tea partier" simply by calling it a Tea Party party, because you'll have to have official stances on those ancillary topics and whatever those stances are you'll likely drive away some of the potential voters. Especially considering that the entire reason for breaking from the GOP would be to essentially ostericize those who don't DIRECLTY agree with this new party on EVERY facet of it's platform.
With each new thing you add onto the platform that you demand everyone MUST agree with you widdle down your potential base more and more and more. And if you don't demand such and you try to be inclusive to people who agree with most of the platform, then it begs the question why the split from the GOP in the first place.
The best thing that the Tea Party and staunch Conservatives can do is to continue to try and work within the GOP. It will take the same amount of time, multiple election cycles, to actually affect change....but in the mean time, instead of just LOSING election after election to Democrats you'd at least have a chance of winning some with guys you like, and winning some with guys you at least like better than democrats. Use the primary process, get people of that ideology working their way into leadership positions, continue to work within and change can occur within the party. But trying to split it is a losing effort imho.
I don't think having moderates in the party is a bad thing. I don't think having members of the religious right that stand for social conservatism, but like big government when it comes to their morals, is a bad thing. I don't think having libertarians that are strong supports of fiscal and governmental conservatism, but don't like the social wing is a bad thing. I think the party needs all of those under the tent and voting for it to succeed.
What I
do think is a problem is when the Party attempts to push any particular facet out of balance with the others. When the party establishment is trying to make "moderate" conservatism the "Norm" for the GOP. Or when the religious right tries to make Social Conservatism THE #1, 2, and 3 priority for the party. Or when Libertarians try to suggest that any amount of focus on social conservatism means they revolt and leave.
The BASLINE for the Party needs to be a balanced soundly conservative view of fiscal, governmental, social, and defense issues. Individual candidates, depending on the region and situation, should be able to accentuate or step back from any particular pillar as necessary and still be welcomed. But an attempt to fundamentally change what the baseline of the party should be,
OR attepmting to suggest those outliers can't be welcomed under the tent, is where we start seeing issues.