There seems to be no unified national Tea Party voice in this primary but, interestingly, the same could be said of the Tea Party during the mid term races a couple of years ago.
During those races the Tea Party's influence rose no higher than offices decided by state vote. There being no presidential election there was no need for a unified national voice. All that was needed at that time was a unified state voice that could be tailored to the elections of specific states, the result of which repeated across the nation allowed for a changed congress.
If the Tea Party is a force more interested in affecting change from the local level up to but not including the presidency as has so far been the case, then perhaps we have an explanation for the Tea Party's seeming disinterest or, perhaps, weakness in the current primaries.
The Tea Party may not be a force best used on the presidential level.
I may be becoming OK with that. Given the choice, I believe we are better served by a potent force focused on all offices but the presidency than one focused on the presidency to the detriment of lesser offices.
History points to that consideration. Over the past 75 years the Democrat party has faired less well in presidential races than in all those offices below the level of the presidency. Democrat success was more in controlling the generation of legislation for 75 years rather than controlling its veto.
I suppose the result is that my tolerance for the individual these presidential primaries produce is much greater than my tolerance for every other office.