Taxation with Representation

Vanity Fair has a good article about Alexander Hamilton, government debt, and the Tea Party's skewed take on history. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/debt-and-dumb-201111 

It still does not cease to amaze me that the Tea Party associates itself with a movement that was ostensibly based on a government that was taxing citizens who did not have representation in that government.  I am waiting for someone to explain for me how a movement in a representative democracy can hold any claim to legitimacy when it does not lack representation.  If it so happens that the Tea Party position is a minority one then the movement's complaints are anti-democratic to the extent the movement advocates implementation of its policies without a majority in Congress or control of the White House.  If the movement cannot get a majority of representatives elected who share the movement's views, then those views by right should not be implemented.  That would be the essence of a representative democracy, right?