In an unruly, unpredictable and chaotic election year, no group has asserted its presence and demanded to be heard more forcefully than the tea party. The grass-roots movement that was spawned with a rant has gone on to upend the existing political order, reshaping the debate in Washington, defeating a number of prominent lawmakers and elevating a fresh cast of conservative stars. 
 
 But a new Washington Post canvass of hundreds of local tea party groups reveals a different sort of organization, one that is not so much a movement as a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process. 
 
 The results come from a months-long effort by The Post to contact every tea party group in the nation, an unprecedented attempt to understand the network of individuals and organizations at the heart of the nascent movement. 
 
 Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general. 
 
 "We're not wanting to be a third party," said Matt Ney, 55, the owner of a Pilates studio and a founder of the Pearland Tea Party Patriots in Pearland, Tex. "We're not wanting to endorse individual candidates ever. What we're trying to do is be activists by pushing a conservative idea." 
 
 The group, with 25 active members, meets to discuss policies and listen to speakers, Ney said. "We provide opportunities for like-minded people to get together," he said. 
 
 The local groups stand in contrast to - and, in their minds, apart from - a handful of large national groups that claim the tea party label. Most of those outfits, including FreedomWorks and Tea Party Express, are headed by longtime political players who have used their resources and know-how to help elect a number of candidates. 
 
 The findings suggest that the breadth of the tea party may be inflated. The Atlanta-based Tea Party Patriots, for example, says it has a listing of more than 2,300 local groups, but The Post was unable to identify anywhere near that many, despite help from the organization and independent research. 
 
 In all, The Post identified more than 1,400 possible groups and was able to verify and reach 647 of them. Each answered a lengthy questionnaire about their beliefs, members and goals. The Post tried calling the others as many as six times. It is unclear whether they are just hard to reach or don't exist. 
 
 Mark Meckler, a founding member of the Tea Party Patriots, said: "When a group lists themselves on our Web site, that's a group. That group could be one person, it could be 10 people, it could come in and out of existence - we don't know. We have groups that I know are 15,000 people, and I have groups that I know are five people." 
 
 'We can't always agree' 
 
 
 
 There is little agreement among the leaders of various groups about what issue the tea party should be most concerned about. In fact, few saw themselves as part of a coordinated effort. 
 
 The most common responses were concerns about spending and limiting the size of government, but together those were named by less than half the groups. Social issues, such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights, did not register as concerns. ||||| The Tea Party has no leader. It has no address, no phone and no Washington headquarters. It is everywhere and nowhere. For Barack Obama, the Tea Party is the quintessential asymmetrical enemy, much like the Taliban in Afghanistan. The president stands a chance of losing on both fronts. 
 
 The Post set up a posse and went in search of the Tea Party. Of the 2,300 local groups claimed by one Tea Party organization, The Post could verify or reach only 647. As for the rest, "it is unclear whether they are just hard to reach or don't exist," The Post said. Most of the known groups back no candidate, have no platform, raise little money and are not exactly sure of what they stand for. This is pretty close to what Will Rogers said of his own political allegiance: "I am not a member of any organized party. I am a Democrat." 
 
 The difference between being an early-20th-century Democrat and an early-21st-century Tea Party member is the Internet. With it, the middleman is eliminated -- in this case an actual political party, Republican or Democratic, which was once called the organization because it actually organized. Now that's done laptop to laptop so like-minded people can get together, even if they do not actually get together. The Tea Party exists in the vapors. For Obama, it's a refutation of what Joe Louis said before his 1941 bout with Billy Conn: "He can run, but he can't hide." The Tea Party can do both. 
 
 As a result, the vexed Obama has been swinging wildly, punching at ghosts. He has tried elevating the colorless John Boehner as a worthy opponent, but his face is as unrecognizable as his name is unpronounceable. Obama tried to make the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Public Enemy No. 1, but to most Americans the chamber is a group of guys in short-sleeve shirts and clip-on ties who sponsor the July 4 parade. He has tried going after Big Business and Evil Finance, but they are where the jobs are -- or used to be -- and while they are both more or less disliked, the message is mixed. 
 
 Obama is stuck in the classic dilemma of asymmetrical warfare: Who and where is the enemy? In Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus carrots-and-sticks the Taliban -- battling them while also inviting them to peace talks. The strategy might work and, if it does, Obama might wonder why he did not do something similar. "Why should he be negotiating with the Taliban and not with the Tea Party?" the Democratic political consultant Douglas E. Schoen asked me. 
 
 The Post's survey of the Tea Party movement suggests Schoen is on to something. Despite a repellent stream of racism in the Tea Party ranks -- The Post found that 11 percent of the Tea Party members said that Obama's race, religion or ethnic background was either "very important" or "somewhat important" for the movement -- the overriding emotion is anger. Anger is ugly to behold, but it is both understandable and widespread. Who besides the odd walrus was not angered by the bridge to nowhere? Who is not angry about earmarks and exorbitant government pensions and lousy roads and awful schools and taxes that seem too high -- in other words a political system in dire need of reform? 
 
 The desire for change -- an emotion one step short of anger -- was what propelled Obama into the White House. As the Tea Party gained attention, he could have made common cause with it -- not on social issues, of course, but these are not as important as economic ones. 
 
 Those and a general distrust of government are what motivate most Tea Party members, The Post discovered. Their allegiance to any political party is minimal. Obama, with almost no political record, might have made inroads with these people. Instead, he managed to become the personification of Big Government -- not just with his programs (necessary though they might be) but with his persona and isolation in the White House. He banned lobbyists but managed to transform himself into the biggest one of all. He blew it. 
 
 The Tea Party is here to stay if only because the Internet is here to stay. But its emotions and its grievances can be co-opted, engulfed, absorbed and made part of the engine of change that Obama himself once both personified and promised. As I recall, the original Tea Party was open to anyone. All you needed for admittance was anger. 
 
 cohenr@washpost.com
– The Tea Party is mad as hell and ... that's about it, writes Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. Beyond anger, the Tea Party "has no leader. It has no address, no phone, and no Washington headquarters. It is everywhere and nowhere." When a Post posse tried to track down 2,300 local tea-drinking groups, it could verify only 647. Cohen writes that "the Tea Party exists in the vapors," bound only by anger and the Internet. The latter eliminates the middleman—"in this case an actual political party, which was once called the organization because it actually organized." "Now that's done laptop to laptop so like-minded people can get together, even if they do not actually get together." This creates an "asymmetrical," impossible-to-nail-down enemy for Obama, but it's an enemy who is seeking change—which is exactly what pushed Obama into the presidency. "The Tea Party is here to stay if only because the Internet is here to stay. But its emotions and its grievances can be co-opted, engulfed, absorbed and made part of the engine of change that Obama himself once both personified and promised. As I recall, the original Tea Party was open to anyone. All you needed for admittance was anger."