Quotes of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on November 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

“Any Republican who you felt got a much-deserved licking?

“David Brooks: Oh yeah. I’m delighted that the country will not be plagued by Senators Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell, and probably Joe Miller in Alaska. In a wave election a candidate has to beat the voters over the head with incompetence to lose, but these folks managed.”

“But privately, Republicans pointed specifically to DeMint’s decision to back unseasoned tea party conservatives, such as Ken Buck in Colorado and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, over primary candidates with broader mainstream appeal as the reason the GOP missed a clean sweep of Congress.

“‘That part you absolutely cannot argue with,’ a veteran GOP operative said, adding that the weakness of these candidates forced the NRSC into spending precious resources in states where it should not have. ‘The Colorado [election] is an awfully, awfully big deal. If you nominate [Buck’s primary opponent] Jane Norton, it’s over in September and you don’t spend a dime,’ the operative said. But after DeMint and tea party activists helped Buck win the nomination, the NRSC and other outside groups were forced to ‘dump millions of dollars in the race and lose. That’s very significant.’

“DeMint dismissed the complaints. ‘I’m really not sure what they’re talking about. They said a conservative couldn’t win in Pennsylvania, and Pat Toomey won,’ he said, also pointing to Sens.-elect Marco Rubio in Florida and Mike Lee in Utah as candidates who were initially opposed by establishment Republicans but went on to win.'”

“Movement conservatives pointed the finger right back at the establishment, accusing the National Republican Senatorial Committee of squandering millions on a California race that wasn’t close at the expense of offering additional aid in places like Colorado, Nevada and Washington state, where Democratic Sen. Patty Murray holds a narrow lead as the votes continue to be counted.”…

“‘If you think what happened in Delaware is ‘a win’ for the Republican Party then we don’t have a snowball’s chance to win the White House,’ [Lindsey Graham] said. ‘If you think Delaware was a wake-up call for Republicans than we have shot at doing well for a long time.’…

“‘If the establishment is doing finger-pointing this morning it’s because their $8 million gamble in California didn’t pay off,’ jabbed a source close to DeMint. ‘That money could have been used in Colorado, Nevada, Washington and Alaska where the races were much looser and much more winnable. That was a huge fumble.’…

“DeMint’s actions have enraged many Republican senators, aides and consultants, many of whom were exchanging cutting emails about him late Tuesday and early Wednesday as it became clear the party would fall short in the Senate.”

“Asked if Tea Party voters should be more pragmatic in nominating more electable candidates during future elections, Jenny Beth Martin, a national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, took a swipe at the rival Tea Party Express.

“‘One thing that we’ve seen across the country is that in places where the Tea Party people were allowed to nominate their own nominees and were not influenced by top-down political organizations, such as Tea Party Express, the Republicans did win,’ Martin said at a Wednesday morning news conference in Washington, D.C.

“Mark Meckler, another national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, claimed ‘the grassroots were not allowed to speak’ in races where the Tea Party Express made endorsements. ‘An outside, top-down organization came in and chose a candidate for them,’ he said…

“‘We’re smiling tonight,’ [Tea Party Express spokesman Levi] Russell said by phone. He did, however, admit that ‘losing Nevada is disappointing because it is such an important race…but when we take a step back and look at what actually happened, there’s no question we completely changed the course of Washington politics.'”

“The Tea Party radicals had previously defeated better and more electable candidates: Mike Castle in Delaware, Sue Lowden in Nevada, Jane Norton in Colorado. Somehow the notion took hold that it was unprincipled and contemptible to support smarter candidates over stupid candidates, inclusive candidates over divisive candidates, experienced candidates over inexperienced, goverance-minded candidates over protest-vote candidates.

“That notion may have cost Republicans the Senate Tuesday night. It may cost much more in future, if Sarah Palin makes the run for the presidential nomination.

“So it needs to be pounded home: The radicals must not be allowed to claim the title of the real Republicans. They must not be allowed to dismiss the true electable, governing core of the party as ‘Republicans in Name Only.’ If anything, it’s the Tea Party radicals with their incessant threats to bolt and form a third party who deserve that name.”

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Cindy Munford on November 4, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Re the 50% – 5% a year is easier to sell if it is a mandate such as the tax cuts were. Getting it in place is the hard part but the new congress could probably get Obama on board simply because he would realize that by the time he took a shot at re-election only 5% cuts would have been done. By the time he left (if re-elected)the federal spending would have seen a 25% reduction but he wouldn’t be too terribly concerned imo. He will spend the next 20 or 30 years telling us how great he was as Carter has done.
Re the moderates – these are usually blue state GOP reps. Selling the “all must sacrifice a little over a long term” appeals more to their constituents than some of the more sweeping alternatives. Go too far and you get Democrats who replace them and frustrate, if not stop the red state conservatives efforts

Bradky on November 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Bradky on November 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM

We differ on what is “too far”. The Husband worked for DOD his entire career and there is plenty of waste to be cut there also, and even though 50% seems high, even over ten years, I bet in a lot of cases they would be cutting the stuff that creeps back in. I am so cynical about D.C. that I wouldn’t put it pass them to add stuff into a budget specifically to be cut for appearance sake. People who write 2700 page bills, boast about not reading it and tell the public with a straight face that it has to be passed before they can reveal it contents, are forever jaded in my eyes.

Cindy Munford on November 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM


On November 2, 2010, the Republican Party made its largest single day gains in the House of Representatives since 1948 and, I have been told credibly, the largest gains of any political party in local, state, and federal races combined in more than 100 years.

19 state legislative bodies ultimately flipped to the GOP. Of the 18 states that will gain or lose seats in Congress for the next decade, the GOP controls 12 of the 18 Governor’s Mansions. The Democrats have been wiped out except among coastal elites and majority-minority districts. The GOP, long said to not be able to make inroads in New England, now controls the Maine Governor’s Mansion, the Maine legislature, the New Hampshire Legislature, a New Hampshire Senate seat, and several congressional seats.

Nonetheless, the Senate Republicans are unhappy because they thought they should have won the Senate. Never mind that few people think the Senate GOP has learned a single lesson from 2006 or 2008. But instead of taking responsibility, they are forced to blame someone. Much like Mr. Obama blaming the voters for Democrat losses by not appreciating what he’d done for them, the Senate GOP is blaming conservatives. And the face of that blame belongs to Jim DeMint.

In the past 24 hours, Senate Republicans and some RNC sources are blaming Jim DeMint directly. Instead of blaming Senator DeMint, the NRSC duo of John Cornyn and Rob Jesmer, and to a lesser the RNC, should blame themselves.

Here are the facts.

1. Jim DeMint is being blamed for Sharron Angle’s nomination in Nevada. DeMint specifically did not endorse nor campaign for Sharron Angle prior to her nomination. Even here at RedState, I backed Danny Tarkanian.

2. Jim DeMint waited until the end of the Delaware Primary to endorse Christine O’Donnell and, frankly, I’d rather Chris Coons than Mike Castle. You may not think you would, but you would. But that is beside the point. O’Donnell was a week away from the primary and already ahead in the polls before DeMint said one word or spent one dime.

3. In Colorado, and this is the biggie, Ken Buck barely lost. The NRSC, shortly before the end of the Colorado Primary, sent millions to Jane Norton freeing her up to attack Ken Buck to be anti-women. Michael Bennet then picked up Norton’s campaign attacks and clobbered Buck.

4. Likewise in Colorado, neither the NRSC nor the RNC funded a GOTV program. They relied on the Republican Governor’s Association, which left Colorado when Dan Maes cratered.

5. Instead of pouring in additional resources to Washington, Colorado, etc., the NRSC sent $8 million to California in the last week for Carly Fiorina who lost by somewhere around ten points.

6. In Alaska, Jim DeMint did nothing to help or support or fund Joe Miller until after he became the Republican nominee. Not including the NRSC, Jim DeMint spent $727,000.00 to help Joe Miller. The rest of the Senate GOP members combined contributed roughly $25,000.00 each. [correction: I didn’t write that last sentence correctly and have updated]

7. GOP Senate candidates underperformed their polling at around 3% in most races. Why? Because the NRSC did not fund a ground game operation, nor did the RNC. They either left it to Karl Rove or Haley Barbour. There was not, as in past years, a mass exodus of GOP Hill Staffers from Washington to the ground in swing states.

But there is an even greater, larger point. None of this would have happened had the NRSC not decided to dictate to Republicans in the several states who their Republican candidates should be. Christine O’Donnell’s and Sharron Angle’s wins were largely reactions to what the NRSC was doing.

Compare this with the House campaign body, the NRCC. After getting clobbered over the NY-23 race and Dede Scozzafava, the NRCC took a hands off approach and let local voters choose their candidates. Not the NRSC. It doubled up around the country igniting a civil war with the grassroots — a civil war that would have never happened but their getting into Florida and doubling down.

The NRSC’s argument amounts to telling the world that voters exercising their right to pick their candidates are stupid and Jim DeMint is stupid for siding with the voters.

One final thought — the NRSC would have you believe that Arlen Specter was more viable than Pat Toomey and Charlie Crist was more viable than Marco Rubio.

Would you rather have Pat Toomey or Arlen Specter?

Would you rather have Marco Rubio or Charlie Crist?

You’re damn right it was a necessary fight and the NRSC and RNC have no one to blame but themselves.

HondaV65 on November 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

David Frum wanted the Republicans to get the Power Back in D.C.

The American people who voted on Tuesday for Republicans were not all members of the Republican party, it took Independents and disenfranchised Democrats to vote the Republicans in. They wanted the Progressives Agenda Blocked. They weren’t embracing the old GOP guard not by a long shot.

So when people state we could have won more seats with RINO candidates – just where were the voters that were going to vote for the “Progressive Candidates” in the Republican party? John McCain had to run to the right of J.D. Hayworth…but still the RINO faction of the Republican party can’t get the message.

Tuesday’s Election was a REJECTION of Progressives and their agenda for this country. It’s not about handing Power back to the Republicans. But if the RINOS want to try and win national elections on their own with their message of Progressive light, good luck to them. I won’t be voting Progressive RINO in 2012.

Dr Evil on November 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Cindy Munford on November 4, 2010 at 10:06 AM

I’m in DoD and understand what you are getting at. But current cost cutting going on will reduce it by almost 2/3 by 2025. That’s why I suggest the tie to GDP.
I’m not a legislative wonk but the Bush tax cuts were law and could not be changed. That is the way I think cuts could be mandated. May have to have verbiage that inflation can’t be factored in to fudge on the numbers.
No disagreement on the health bill and your reaction but as I recall no Republicans voted for it in the final bill. So when I talk about moderates in my mind I’m thinking of Republican moderates.

Bradky on November 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM

If anything, it’s the Tea Party radicals with their incessant threats to bolt and form a third party who deserve that name.

OK. Works for me if that’s the way you want it.

Tea Party hands them a huge win in the house; governerships; and major wins at the state level, and all they can do is whine.

One small giant step for the Tea Party; one giant leap for freedom.

If the Establishment GOP can’t see that, then get out of the way.

davidk on November 4, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Bradky on November 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM

The healthcare vote was the foundation of this years election victory, it would be crazy to vote for it as a Republican. Especially after being openly and dismissively cut out of the process. Also, the healthcare bill wasn’t the only piece of legislation to have “tricks” for a lack of a better word built into them. Stimulus, TARP (W’s watch), financial reform and various bailouts had text that gave powers to department agency heads that should only be given to elected officials.

Cindy Munford on November 4, 2010 at 10:27 AM

What does David Brooks have against Joe Miller? Did Miller decline a request for more information about his pants or something?

Threshing Flora on November 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM

According to George Stephanopolus (sorry if that is spelled incorrectly) on O’Reilly this evening Harry Reid manipulated the primaries so that Ms. Angle was his opponent. I had not heard that but other commenters said it was common knowledge. Two things about the Tea Parties, one, they are new at this and second, as I noted above you are not always going to find someone with great core principles & great verbal skills.

Cindy Munford on November 4, 2010 at 1:03 AM

I’d like to know more on that. Anyone?

Given Dingy’s control over the voting machines through his sonny boy and the SEIU, this could extend to the same level of cheating that he has used through his career to stay in office, OR, it could mean simply funding her through fronts, doing damage to her opponents, etc.

slickwillie2001 on November 4, 2010 at 10:39 AM

HondaV65 on November 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Good summary. I hear a lot of nonsense about the Tea Party ‘selecting’ candidates, yet in many cases like that of COD, she would have run in the primary (as she has before the Tea Part existed), and likely would have beat Castle as well. If a Tea Party throws their support behind a primary-elected Republican candidate, we can hardly say that they ‘selected’ them.

slickwillie2001 on November 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM

HondaV65 on November 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

I don’t think copying and pasting a complete article from Red State is courteous to the author. A few excerpts and the link, so we could go to the site and give them the traffic for their efforts, would have been the thing to do. Most sites, and I imagine Hot Air is among them, will discourage this sort of thing for that very reason.

Deanna on November 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM

slickwillie2001 on November 4, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Me to! I remember this story and how this gentleman was being used to siphon Armenian vote from Tarkanien.

But I don’t know if this is what George meant.

Cindy Munford on November 4, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Hell, you should never pin your hopes on a 1 time loser. I believe Rossi and COD fit that mold. ;)

lorien1973 on November 3, 2010 at 10:54 PM

1816 His family was forced out of their home. He had to work to support them.
1818 His mother died.
1831 Failed in business.
1832 Ran for state legislature – lost.
l832 Also lost his job – wanted to go to law school but couldn’t get in.
1833 Borrowed some money from a friend to begin a business and by the end of the year he was bankrupt. He spent the next 17 years of his life paying off this debt.
1834 Ran for state legislature again – won.
1835 Was engaged to be married, sweetheart died and his heart was broken.
1836 Had a total nervous breakdown and was in bed for six months.
1838 Sought to become speaker of the state legislature – defeated.
1840 Sought to become elector – defeated.
1843 Ran for Congress – lost.
1846 Ran for Congress again – this time he won – went to Washington and did a good job.
1848 Ran for re-election to Congress – lost.
1849 Sought the job of land officer in his home state – rejected.
1854 Ran for Senate of the United States – lost.
1856 Sought the Vice-Presidential nomination at his party’s national convention – get less than 100 votes.
1858 Ran for U.S. Senate again – again he lost.
1860 Elected president of the United States.


davidk on November 4, 2010 at 10:47 AM

“Stupid” candidates? This from a guy who’s been on the wrong side of history since day 1? This from a guy who (is he still on Frum’s staff) kept a NAMBLA type on his payroll even after discovering his assistant is a NAMBLA type?

MNHawk on November 4, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Some one should ask the Frums and Brooks of the world that, if they believe their personal wits and charms ‘created this huge wave’ of Republican sweep?

Sir Napsalot on November 4, 2010 at 11:18 AM

What? O’Donnell didn’t win?? Surely it was close, right???

Tres Angelas on November 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Interesting: My comment on this thread last night is gone. I’ve searched through every page and it’s not here. But AP wouldn’t have deleted it so I do get it.

FloatingRock on November 4, 2010 at 11:42 AM

So I get treated to a double dose of wit from Brooks and Frum. What, did I wake up in Hell this morning?

Physics Geek on November 4, 2010 at 12:18 PM

To Obama: opponents = ‘enemy’

To Establishment GOP: activists (patriots) = ‘radicals’

right, and you wonder why both have such low ratings.

Sir Napsalot on November 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM

I swear if I have to I’ll move down there to beat that squish, but I doubt I’m electable but I swear I’d try it to see that clown go down!

dhunter on November 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

If you run on that platform alone, you’ll get my contribution.

Sir Napsalot on November 4, 2010 at 12:41 PM

Turns out my comment here last night that I thought might have been deleted—wasn’t. My search string was accidentally configured for case sensitivity and I simply missed it.

FloatingRock on November 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5