Beltway Republicans planning to intervene more in GOP primaries

posted at 6:55 pm on January 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

I remember when the NRSC took such intense heat for endorsing Charlie Crist in the primary over Rubio that then-chair John Cornyn vowed to stay out of primaries in the future. Three years and several Sharron Angles/Christine O’Donnells/Todd Akins later, the tune has changed among the broader Republican establishment. Question for readers: Is this worthy of automatic opposition on “damn these establishment RINOs” grounds or is it more of a wait-and-see thing? My sense from the comments here after Akin blew up over his rape remarks was that even a lot of grassroots conservatives wished he’d been torpedoed in the primary by a more electable candidate. Maybe that buys moderates a tiny bit of leeway among the base to push more “electable” candidates. At least until they go and back another Crist.

High-profile Senate Republicans are going to try to pre-empt bloody primaries with aggressive, early recruitment and support — effectively trying to clear fields…

Further, top Senate Republicans have made clear to outside groups that they’d like the third parties to not exist simply as entities that air attack ads against Democrats in general elections but to play a more hands-on role in GOP primaries…

Translation into non-Senate speak: The big-money establishment Republican super PACs like American Crossroads need to serve as a counterbalance in primaries to conservative outfits such as Club for Growth and former Sen. Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund…

“To be effective, you have to go well before the primary and identify well-qualified candidates using a number of criteria,” said one source familiar with Crossroads’s thinking. “It’s not who’s more or less conservative, but putting together a more discriminating evaluation of candidates.”…

“When a center-right Republican is in a primary and is being targeted by some group as a RINO, we’re going to make sure we have their back,” said LaTourette. “Not just with speeches and press releases but with money.”

Better recruitment would sound wonderful if not for the fact that the establishment’s talent evaluators decided that this soulless careerist was a worthier candidate than Marco Rubio, a guy who’s already being touted as a potential Republican presidential nominee in 2016. Is there any situation where American Crossroads would endorse a more impressive, more conservative longshot over an ostensibly more “electable” centrist (especially a centrist incumbent)? My agita here isn’t over Steve LaTourette’s RINO Super PAC wading into a primary to try to torpedo a conservative, it’s the fear that it’ll wade in to torpedo impressive conservatives like Mike Lee or Ron Johnson or Pat Toomey or Ted Cruz or any of the other credible right-wing candidates who’ve been elected since 2010. Whom do you trust, among either the establishment or the grassroots, to consistently reliably discern “worthy” candidates from unworthy ones?

At the very least, this’ll be a fun experiment in seeing how far Super PAC money goes. In most cases, being opposed by Crossroads or the NRSC or whoever will be a badge of honor and mark of credibility for a tea-party upstart; will that mean doom for the establishment candidate on election day or can the ad blitz on his behalf buy the primary for Joe Beltway? And won’t this ultimately mean more right-wing dollars overall being spent on Republican primaries than on general elections? That’s safe in a red state, not so much in a purple one.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

*sigh*

Tim Zank on January 4, 2013 at 6:58 PM

How about the national Republican organizations urging the states to adopt closed primaries instead?

onlineanalyst on January 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Maybe that buys moderates a tiny bit of leeway among the base to push more “electable” candidates.

Wasn’t Mitt Romney the more “electable” candidate?

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Does the Republican party represent us? or do we work for them?

portlandon on January 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

This is the reason no one wants to vote for Republicans. These beltway “Republicans” are Democrats in all but name. While Republicans are not by definition conservative, they are not as far progressive as these anti-American scum.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM

You can’t be a bomb thrower and get elected.

I would never mention registering or otherwise impeding black, Latino and poor people to stop gun crime if I were running. Even though nobody ever goes to places like Jamaica where the rate is 33.9 and they charge $6,000 to register a handgun and a hoodlum told me cops just kill you if you have a gun.

The US rate is 6.7 so there is something going on and I don’t ever intend to use the racist dogwhistle Chicago to start trouble even with all the killings up there or in DC.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM

You can’t be a bomb thrower and get elected.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Alan Grayson Gets Another Chance In Congress

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Akin was establishment. The Tea Party hated him. And O’Donnell wasn’t Tea Party either. The establishment didn’t want to run a conservative, so the Tea Party said no dice. I don’t remember the details with Sharron Angle, but she ran against Reid and had lots of opposition from Republicans. Romney couldn’t unseat Obama. Why would the establishment think they could unseat Reid?

So no more of those three kinds of people? Really? Tea Party is first in line in agreement.

MrX on January 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Question for readers: Is this worthy of automatic opposition on “damn these establishment RINOs” grounds

Yes.

My sense from the comments here after Akin blew up over his rape remarks was that even a lot of grassroots conservatives wished he’d been torpedoed in the primary by a more electable candidate.

I’m not one of them. First, the entire concept of “electability” has been shown to be bunk (exhibit A: Mitt Romney). Second, Todd Akin had an exemplary record of conservatism. Third, outside of his one dumb comment, he was not some sort of hideously unappealing guy. He had led McCaskill by a healthy margin. Although I would have preferred he step aside after the remark, the combination of both rabid excoriation rather than paving a path for a dignified withdrawal, along with the lack of a consensus replacement candidate provided no reason for him to leave. What’s worse, the GOP wanted him to pay for the cost of removing his own name from the ballot out-of-pocket. It’s little wonder he gave the establishment the finger.

The establishment though could not stand the thought of having a social conservative running, and so they decided to magnify his gaffe as much as possible, harping on it incessantly, rabidly demanding that he step aside, all the while ignoring the serial hypocrisy of other candidates that they supported, including some current office holders who have not simply said, but who have done terrible things. Let it not be said that the establishment consists of masters of proportionality.

There were a whole lot of establishment folks willing to condemn Akin for a dumb comment that he apologized for, while supporting Mitt Romney’s 47 percent remark on the susbtance of it without apology. That’s a great case-study in insanity.

Stoic Patriot on January 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Just to be clear, I am no longer a Republican. As this site says, it is for conservatives.

Hot Air is the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary covering the Republican primary, the 2012 election, politics, media, and culture.

In fact, I doubt there will be too many down tickets I even waste my time filling an oval in for in the future unless something drastic changes within the Republican party.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Just another reason to never give a dime to the RNC.

idesign on January 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Shorter GOP:

“We decide who represents the people of this country, not the people”

BobMbx on January 4, 2013 at 7:08 PM

once again, we focus on the macro without figuring out the micro

THE PROBLEM ARE THE STATE PRIMARIES THAT DON’T HAVE A 50%+1 RUNOFF.

In Missouri, Akin won like 34% of the vote, beating Steelman (33%) and Brunner? (33%). In a runoff, tea partiers coalesce behind Steelman or Brunner and win easy

In Nevada, Angle won 35%ish over Tarkanian and Loewden. In a runoff, she loses to Tark.

In Florida, by contrast, Rubio got over 50% versus Crist. And imagine that, Rubio won the general.

Stop ‘rewarding’ the 35% candidate simply because the other 65% had 2 decent choices. Make the GOP nominee for any race, for dog catcher, get 50%+1. THIS IS NOT DIFFICULT!!!

MUCH LIKE STATES NEEDING TO CLOSE OPEN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES, STATES NEED TO IMPLEMENT 50%+1 FOR THE GOP NOMINATION. WHY WE DON’T DO THE SIMPLE THINGS INFURIATES ME.

pamplonajack on January 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

While Tea Party, grassroots, populist Republicans haven’t been perfect at getting elected, the establishment GOP has been downright dismal in its choices. Thanks Mitt Romney! After they’ve spent decades abandoning every Republican principle there is, they have no business trying to tell us who should be in Washington.

Warner Todd Huston on January 4, 2013 at 7:10 PM

…conservatives like Mike Lee or Ron Johnson or Pat Toomey or Ted Cruz or any of the other credible right-wing candidates who’ve been elected since 2010…

Your slip is showing…

Gohawgs on January 4, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Why didn’t they intervene and push out Todd Akin when everyone was demanding them to do it? They just pulled the plug and let him flail.

It doesn’t matter if the Rinos or the True Conservatives are in control, we will and would always be the “Washington Generals” because the whole democratic game is rigged and needs to be rejected.

ninjapirate on January 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Wasn’t Mitt Romney the more “electable” candidate?

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

He was. Nominating Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul would have resulted in an even bigger Obama win than nominating Mitt did.

J.S.K. on January 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

To play devil’s advocate for a second, I think there are two situations in which establishment intervention in a primary can be a GOOD thing.

(1) In cases in which the Democrats are actively spending money trying to influence the GOP primary. So, in cases, like Missouri and Nevada, in which the Democratic candidate spends hundreds of thousands of dollars during the primary to try to defeat a viable GOP candidate, it is reasonable for the establishment to jump in to try to mount a protective defense.

(2)In cases in which there is special knowledge of a candidate’s yet-to-be-revealed scandal or disqualifying evidence, then the establishment may, regretably, have an obligation to get involved in a primary. Intervention on this front may have prevented something like the Dan Maes fiasco from 2010.

Robert_Paulson on January 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

If Romney had won, this sort of threat would have had some useful credibility. Now it will just worsen Podhoretzian chaos.

Seth Halpern on January 4, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Akin was establishment. The Tea Party hated him. And O’Donnell wasn’t Tea Party either. The establishment didn’t want to run a conservative, so the Tea Party said no dice. I don’t remember the details with Sharron Angle, but she ran against Reid and had lots of opposition from Republicans.

MrX on January 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Correct on Akin, Brunner and Steelman split the conservative vote. Wrong on O’Donnell, most tea party groups did back her. That was mainly due to Mike Castle having a 50% conservative rating and voting with Democrats on almost all major legislation. Angle was backed by tea party groups, establishment wimps said she couldn’t win independents and ran her down, she won independents by 5 points, she lost 15% of the Republican votes as those wimps decided to vote for Reid instead of her.

topdawg on January 4, 2013 at 7:15 PM

He was. Nominating Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul would have resulted in an even bigger Obama win than nominating Mitt did.

J.S.K. on January 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

And were you telling everyone that the Republicans had little to no chance of winning the election? That is what you are arguing and it’s BS.

Romney was one of the worst choices the GOP could have gone with, and the results demonstrate the truth of that.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:17 PM

My sense from the comments here after Akin blew up over his rape remarks was that even a lot of grassroots conservatives wished he’d been torpedoed in the primary by a more electable candidate.

In MOSEN and in my Congressional district (now represented by Alan Grayson), the more electable conservative candidates got blown out of the primary by a last-minute Dem/PAC money dump (In FL-9, $1.2M the week preceding the primary). Perhaps this is where the GOP Congressional committes can make a difference, provided there is savvier leadership at the helm than Cornyn and Sessions.

Jorge Bonilla on January 4, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Don’t worry Mitt Romney is about to take his gloves off and go after Obama’s lousy leadership record.

SparkPlug on January 4, 2013 at 7:19 PM

He was. Nominating Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul would have resulted in an even bigger Obama win than nominating Mitt did.

J.S.K. on January 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Question: in the event that you are right (which I highly doubt), what is the point of going with the “electable” candidate if you get precisely the same outcome?

That goes for Tommy Thompson, Linda McMahon, Scott Brown, and Charlie Summers too.

Stoic Patriot on January 4, 2013 at 7:20 PM

The country is spiraling down the drain and the GOP gives us yet another reason not to care whether GOP candidates get elected or not.

Aitch748 on January 4, 2013 at 7:21 PM

He was. Nominating Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul would have resulted in an even bigger Obama win than nominating Mitt did.

J.S.K. on January 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Not so with Gingrich. No clue on Santorum but you are right about Paul.

Gingrich would have created a platform with specific policies and reachable goals with specific methods of accomplishing them. Note he was a major driver of the Contract with America and once elected to the speakership worked tirelessly to implement the entire thing. While he failed, it was more due to the establishment Republicans refusing to give up power now that they were the wielders of it.

Long story short, Newt Gingrich would have enthused the based, got the attention of the moderates like in the 1990′s and pulled more votes. Not only that, he likely would have very long coattails as he would have offered the platform up for everyone to sign onto. This would have made the election one of uniformity and would have cut to a large extent the public view of the individual and more onto the view of the policy.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Christie hogged the spotlight at the convention. Stupid to have the RINO traitor up there.

The RINOs betray you everytime.

SparkPlug on January 4, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Better recruitment would sound wonderful if not for the fact that the establishment’s talent evaluators decided that this soulless careerist was a worthier candidate than Marco Rubio, a guy who’s already being touted as a potential Republican presidential nominee in 2016.

This alone was worse than all the Tea Party’s so called “mistakes” combined. That was not the only mistake the party establishment made either. Everyone is getting caught up in the Rhino vs. Tea Party fight, but to me this has more to do with the GOP establishment just being inept. The information that came out after the Romney campaign has ended any trust on my part, and it was very little to before that, that the bigwigs have idea what they are doing.

How can you get people to donate money to any cause if they think that group will just throw their money away? It is a trust thing and right now I trust conservative groups like the Tea Party, despite their mistakes, more than the establishment. They at least know where they want to go, the establishment does not.

William Eaton on January 4, 2013 at 7:25 PM

It may be time for a 3rd Party. The Republican establishment is worse at picking them than the tea party. They want to talk Todd Akin whose big crime was saying one stupid thing. Well, how about the establishment and CHarlie Crist. If it weren’t for the tea party, in Florida, we’d have had Charlie Crist (maybe). Then the establishment picks Connie Mack IV???? How good was that pick? Even Republicans had a hard time voting for him yet they want to bring up Todd Akin.

Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, because of tea party support, where were the establishment Republicans on that one? The establishment had better realize a couple of things, one, Democrat Lite doesn’t do it for the majority of Republican voters and two, the Democrats are in this to win and destroy the Republican party. If the Republicans don’t get it, they’ll keep on putting forth Connie Mack IV candidates and losing to Democrats. It’s the establishment that’s allowed the Democrats to trash the tea party (helping them sometimes too) and not supporting conservatives in general. If they keep it up, there will be a serious 3rd party and elections will be lost for many years before the establishment is extinct and the new party takes over everything.

bflat879 on January 4, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I call BS. This is about moderate Republicans (which is pretty much all of ‘em these days) protecting their own.

Besides, the GOP put all conceivable pressure on Akin to drop out. He was on a mission from God, Claire McCaskill, so he decided to keep running.

SAMinVA on January 4, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Is the GOP establishment actually inept, or do they just like Democrats to win so that GOP pols can feed at the federal trough more unobtrusively than they can when Republicans are in power and therefore presumed to be calling the shots in Washington?

Aitch748 on January 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Aitch748 on January 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM

it definitely the latter. the gope is the enemy of the middle class.

renalin on January 4, 2013 at 7:30 PM

What can possibly compete with free money, free housing, free food, and obowmaphones, especially if you attended a government school or are an illegal immigrant…?

… The ‘Establishment Republicans’ are part of the political elite ruling class and will only be concerned on keeping their positions and status.

The media doesn’t even hide their bias anymore, and along with Hollywood set the dumbed down ‘pop culture’ which is upstream from politics…

‘Fast and Furious’, Solyndra, and Benghazi… are you kidding me?

Welcome to California everyone..

Seven Percent Solution on January 4, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Here in Missouri, you can thank the DNC for getting Akin in for the generals. There was a lot of cross over votes as Akin was viewed as the weakest opponent to go up against Air Claire. Thus, there was a big push to get him elected in the primary from the DNC.

If Missouri went to closed primaries, this wouldn’t be an issue, but when Dems run unopposed as Air Claire did, the DNC will push the votes to the weakest viewed opponent every time.

Mo_mac on January 4, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Senator Tommy Thompson approves!

Valkyriepundit on January 4, 2013 at 7:32 PM

If Republicans were slight of a Senate majority by 1 or 2 seats, perhaps intervention by the establishment would be more reasonable. But last election, the establishment’s choices were defeated.

aryeung on January 4, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Ummm.. Seriously, astoneii are you Newt Gingrich? Because he is the only one who thought he could beat Obama was Gingrich. See ethics problems, adultery, hypocrisy about said adultery, and a general smarmy personality.

Illinidiva on January 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM

pamplonajack on January 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

+1

Don’t worry Mitt Romney is about to take his gloves off and go after Obama’s lousy leadership record.

SparkPlug on January 4, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Both the campaign* of 2012 and the election of 2010 are being misused to call for more “pure” and strident candidates.

My opinion, The media pasted Romney and kept him acting like a gerbil. For 2010, the off year results are not the template for every following election.

Stoic Patriot on January 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM

The very thought of supporting that narcissistic fool Akin shows a lack of focus with the reality of elections. He was the worst.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM

How about the national Republican organizations urging the states to adopt closed primaries instead?

onlineanalyst on January 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

My taxpayer dollars are funding those primary elections, so I should be able to vote in either the Rep or Dem or both of them if I should choose. It’s my money.

Want closed primaries? Make the parties pay the costs of the primary election.

AngusMc on January 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

I’m from the DC republican establishment and I’m here to help.

The eleven scariest words ever spoken to a true limited government Conservative.

PappyD61 on January 4, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Because he is the only one who thought he could beat Obama was Gingrich. See ethics problems, adultery, hypocrisy about said adultery, and a general smarmy personality.

Illinidiva on January 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM

No he isn’t the only one.

Newt would have attacked Obama on Obamacare, he wouldn’t have sat there agreeing with Obama for most of the debates, and he wouldn’t have just let the media set the agenda. He also knows about GOTV efforts which seem to eluded Romney and would have had at least a minimal appeal to the base which Romney lacked. Obama lost millions of his voters and just turning out the conservative base would have been enough to win.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:38 PM

NO MORE MONEY to the republican party (a/k/a the other Democrats).

it’s dead.

PappyD61 on January 4, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Is the GOP establishment actually inept, or do they just like Democrats to win so that GOP pols can feed at the federal trough more unobtrusively than they can when Republicans are in power and therefore presumed to be calling the shots in Washington?

Aitch748 on January 4, 2013 at 7:29 PM

They are inept. If they had skill at feeding off the federal government they would still pick better crooks.

William Eaton on January 4, 2013 at 7:40 PM

J.S.K. on January 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Mitt had no use for people like me but I still liked the gentleman and feel that he was the most electable. I THOUGHT HIS STAFF COULD CHEW GUM OR WALK. NOT AT THE SAME TIME! EITHER!

THEY COULDN’T!

The heartbreak was the lack of a full debate and an informed electorate.

Whether Newt, Perry or Paul would have lit fires and won we shall never know. Heck, I would have run but I didn’t have the resume.

The posts here would get me elected, I’m sure.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:41 PM

What/who is the GOP..?

d1carter on January 4, 2013 at 7:42 PM

The very thought of supporting that narcissistic fool Akin shows a lack of focus with the reality of elections. He was the worst.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM

I’d say it shows a willingness to examine record rather than just gaffes.

I recall similar statements being made about Christine O’Donnell. Those same people seem to forget that her opponent was ultra-electable Mike Castle.

The funny thing when it comes to moderates b*tching about electability is that if they were so electable and they were so skilled at winning elections, then shouldn’t they be capable of demonstrating that on a smaller scale by winning in primaries?

What the moderates don’t want to face is that where there is no clear message and no clear principles, there is no movement ready to follow you. You’ll lose badly in both primaries and in general elections, and not even all the super PAC money in the world can save you against a guy with persistently high unemployment and at least four major scandals.

Stoic Patriot on January 4, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Nothing good will come of this.

JellyToast on January 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Romney was one of the worst choices the GOP could have gone with, and the results demonstrate the truth of that.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Yeah, Romney was such a horrible candidate that he got more votes in Indiana than Mike Pence, and more votes in Texas than Ted Cruz.

Jon0815 on January 4, 2013 at 7:45 PM

PappyD61 on January 4, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Then you get Secretary Clinton or Cong. Maxine Waters or Ms. Maddow or Mayor Cory Anthony Booker….

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Why can’t they change the rules not to allow Democrats to vote in Republican primaries?

Not that my 1 vote counts, but I see no reason to ever vote again. Romney himself could have questioned some of the vote tabulations that were nebulous. Yes, but why would he? He wimped out of the last 2 debates.

How many republicans caved & voted for the tax hiking stimulus ridden Fiscal nocliff bill? Enough to make one cringe. It’ll be the same with pork Sandy. & the debt ceiling. & amnesty.

What does the GOP do to conservatives? Get rid of them. Boehner eliminating 4 conservatives from committees, & the Florida GOP redistricting to eliminate Allen West. Only until they become rinos will they be accepted by the GOP.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/did-voter-fraud-swing-election/

Belle on January 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Nothing good will come of this.

JellyToast on January 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM

I agree..It is a circular firing squad..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Yeah, Romney was such a horrible candidate that he got more votes in Indiana than Mike Pence, and more votes in Texas than Ted Cruz.

Jon0815 on January 4, 2013 at 7:45 PM

He got fewer votes than John McCain did for the population, and McCain was facing Obama with Bush fatigue, an economic collpase, and when Obama was the newest most amazing candidate in the world, and hadn’t racked up a slew of scandals and a damaged economy.

How Romney managed to screw it up is the question.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Why can’t they change the rules not to allow Democrats to vote in Republican primaries?

Belle on January 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM

They can.

The better question is, why don’t they?

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM

The establishment though could not stand the thought of having a social conservative (Todd Akin) running, and so they decided to magnify his gaffe as much as possible…

Let’s clarify what you mean by ‘establishment’…

- the next day, MSM hourly radio newscasts gleefully featured Akin’s scientifically indefensible and politically suicidal comments…

- surfing cable channels, there was MSBC doing a feature segment on Akin’s mind bending idiocy…

- there was Akin’s quote as a graphic on Stephen Colbert…

etc., etc., etc.

That’s why ‘establishment’ GOP types such as Ashcroft, Danforth, Blunt, along with ‘true’ conservatives such as Limbaugh, Hanity, and Levine all expressed their wishes for Akin to get lost… because he was going to lose big.

A guy like Akin presents a no-win situation as long as the MSM is willing to stack their coverage… Akin, in this environment, could only set back both GOP chances and the pro-life cause. And that is exactly what he did.

It looks to me like conservatism is screwed no matter what action the GOP establishment does or doesn’t take.

shinty on January 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM

If the Patriots lose a game it doesn’t mean they were a fraud all along and the whole idea of “the Patriots can win a football game” was incorrect. If the Patriots go to the Super Bowl and lose, nobody is going to say “See? The Jets would’ve brought this home for the AFC, they just didn’t get a chance”. Bad logic is bad.

pauljc on January 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM

going on record right now …

GOP will go broke intervening in primaries and end up with budget problems during the general elections that follow.

If there’s a way to screw things up, these guys will find it.

Lost in Jersey on January 4, 2013 at 7:52 PM

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM

You might want to “google” that..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM

If the Patriots lose a game it doesn’t mean they were a fraud all along and the whole idea of “the Patriots can win a football game” was incorrect. If the Patriots go to the Super Bowl and lose, nobody is going to say “See? The Jets would’ve brought this home for the AFC, they just didn’t get a chance”. Bad logic is bad.

pauljc on January 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Try debating team instead of a sports team.

The GOP failed to convince the nation that they had anything to offer, and that has everything to do with who they are, their past behavior, and the credibility of the guy fronting for them.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Stoic Patriot on January 4, 2013 at 7:43 PM

First, you made an excuse for a man who made an incredibly stupid gaffe. Professionals in the GOP can’t do what he did. Period. Then you excused his giving the GOP the finger. That shows real dedication to centrist or right causes for sure. The media sure got the bag of loudspeakers out but the remark showed near mental illness in accessing a real political issue.

And then you moan about Mitt. Trust me, Romney would have been out if his 47% remark (or some other problems) came to light in the primaries.

Mike Castle was in a Democratic stronghold. The behavior over there was close to nutty, also. A witch? Even her own party turned on her.

You show one problem like what I have seen for decades. Republicans turn on their own like wolves. Some posters here demonstrate that very effect.

Dems have different rules, I grant you.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:56 PM

shinty on January 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM

I agree with you on your diagnosis of the situation. My point is that the establishment would have been better served offering him as graceful a path to exit behind the scenes as possible. Instead, they had every voice within the GOP openly condemn him, including Reince Priebus and John Cornyn continuing to do so on the Sunday shows weeks after the gaffe. They made no effort to mitigate the damage, and did everything they could to further pile-on and remind people of it. They made no attempt to establish a set of bounds or contend that there was anything to Akin outside of that remark. That’s rather ridiculous for a single remark that the guy who uttered it himself recanted.

Stoic Patriot on January 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

He got fewer votes than John McCain did for the population, and McCain was facing Obama with Bush fatigue, an economic collpase, and when Obama was the newest most amazing candidate in the world, and hadn’t racked up a slew of scandals and a damaged economy.

How Romney managed to screw it up is the question.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Romney got the same percentage of the white vote that Reagan did in 1980. He lost because blacks voted 95% for Obama and Hispanics 70%. That would have happened no matter who the GOP nominee was. But Perry/Noot/Santorum would have won the white vote by a smaller margin, and as a result Obama would have won overall in a landslide. Romney at least kept it close enough that the GOP held the House.

Jon0815 on January 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

You might want to “google” that..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Already have.

Romney got 60.93 million votes from a population of 314 million.

McCain got 59.95 million from a population of 304 million.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:59 PM

The GOP failed to convince the nation that they had anything to offer, and that has everything to do with who they are, their past behavior, and the credibility of the guy fronting for them.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Not getting out from under the “Bush Mess” had that election iffy from the start.

Then we had every minority and female turned off.

We offered a good economy.

A question is whether people suffering most want handouts today, not jobs.

And now we have amnesty. I see are breakdown coming with the GOP really becoming a waste. And the whole economy is not going to bust in four or eight years. Other outrages will go down.

Sad.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:01 PM

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:59 PM

LoLz..:)

PS..Plus Romney won 2 more states..:)

PSS..But they both lost..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:01 PM

How about the national Republican organizations urging the states to adopt closed primaries instead?

onlineanalyst on January 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

that would be a great start ….
and would solve a lot of the problem

conservative tarheel on January 4, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Romney got the same percentage of the white vote that Reagan did in 1980.

Jon0815 on January 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Percentage of the vote who bothered to show up. Many never bothered because of who Romney is.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM

First, you made an excuse for a man who made an incredibly stupid gaffe. Professionals in the GOP can’t do what he did. Period.

Oh? What was the excuse? Did I say he was tired? Did I say that he was taken out of context? I made no such excuse.

Then you excused his giving the GOP the finger. That shows real dedication to centrist or right causes for sure. The media sure got the bag of loudspeakers out but the remark showed near mental illness in accessing a real political issue.

The GOP deserved the finger, and that I am willing to excuse him on. Their conduct regarding his gaffe was far more suicidal than the original gaffe.

And then you moan about Mitt. Trust me, Romney would have been out if his 47% remark (or some other problems) came to light in the primaries.

That didn’t seem to affect the establishment regarding “severely” conservative Mitt Romney and his “progressive” views supporting gun control, abortion, being to the left of Ted Kennedy on homosexuality, who didn’t care about the very poor and liked being able to fire people.

Mike Castle was in a Democratic stronghold. The behavior over there was close to nutty, also. A witch? Even her own party turned on her.

Mike Castle was also the political clone of Charlie Crist with the electability of Ralph Nader. That’s a guy without a single saving virtue.

You show one problem like what I have seen for decades. Republicans turn on their own like wolves. Some posters here demonstrate that very effect.

Dems have different rules, I grant you.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:56 PM

The establishment however wants things both ways: we must unite around them when they win in primaries, but if conservatives win in a primary then they must be drummed out.

So with a set of political hacks like that, I’m willing to go the route of political purity and vote for the guy I want.

Stoic Patriot on January 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Ummm.. Seriously, astoneii are you Newt Gingrich? Because he is the only one who thought he could beat Obama was Gingrich. See ethics problems, adultery, hypocrisy about said adultery, and a general smarmy personality.

Illinidiva on January 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Yeah, they would have been detrimental to his campaign. Then again, he would have HAD a campaign, as opposed to the campaign that was always just around the corner that we got from Willard Obama-Is-A-Nice-Guy-In-Over-His-Head Mitt My-Views-Are-Progressive Romney.

With Romney you got mediocre demoralized conservative turnout, and higher moderate moron turnout. With Newt you would have gotten high excited to bring their friends and family conservative turnout and mediocre moderate moron turnout. In the end the friends and family members would have totally outnumbered the bonus moderate moron turnout that Romney brought.

Like I said, Newt would have made it a campaign of ideas and policies, it is what he does. Romney made it a campaign of competence of doing the same thing and lost even that!

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Percentage of the vote who bothered to show up. Many never bothered because of who Romney is.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Can you back that up??..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM

LoLz..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Romney got less of the vote than McCain did given the respective populations at the time. That is how enthusiastic voters were for the most electable candidate everz!!!

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Percentage of the vote who bothered to show up. Many never bothered because of who Romney is.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Can you back that up??..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM

I am speaking in GOP terms..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Percentage of the vote who bothered to show up. Many never bothered because of who Romney is.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Can you back that up??..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Election results 2012: Voter turnout lower than 2008 and 2004

Thursday’s report, from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, put 2012 voter turnout at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-voter-turnout-lower-than-2008-and-2004-report-says

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Romneybots for evah!!!

trigon on January 4, 2013 at 8:08 PM

“wait and see thing?”

Surely you jest AP.

The GOP, they will betray you.

Mr. Arrogant on January 4, 2013 at 8:09 PM

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES!

Next thing we know – the GOP will COMMANDING us to vote for their lame candidates.

Wake me up when the revolution starts okay? Amateur hour has just pegged my fun meter.

HondaV65 on January 4, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Because Mitt was such a strong candidate . . . .

Angry Dumbo on January 4, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Alan Grayson Gets Another Chance In Congress

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 7:03 PM


Comrade Alan Grayson Survives A s s a ssination Attempt!

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:11 PM

pamplonajack on January 4, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Yes, except it was 36%-30%-29% Akin/Brunner/Steelman. Brunner would have beaten Akin in a straight-up runoff easy. And we are working on passing a runoff rule since we now have veto-proof majorities in the state legislature.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:11 PM

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Can you back that up??..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Jon0815 on January 4, 2013 at 7:57 PM

+ 1

Wait for 2016 with a glacial improvement in the economy, even more Latinos and the organization of “National Chicago” running like a Hoover vacuum.

The media covering up a fiasco for Israel and the toxic effect of every program the left loves will be the usual shield. Heck unless I heard wrong, POTUS got half of the active duty military votes.

Prediction I got from drunken expert: The next GOP nominee will get the same full service mud bath and ridicule.

The Dems now regret not nailing John McCain as a jerk who just wrecked planes outside of their local ward folks. They do do ads if they could today.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Like I said, Newt would have made it a campaign of ideas and policies, it is what he does.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM

I agree with this, although I don’t know that his approach would have pulled off a win. Lots of “reasonable” republicans would have voted for Obama rather than “crazy” newt gingrich.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Yeah, they would have been detrimental to his campaign. Then again, he would have HAD a campaign

You’re right. He did show excellent skills running his campaign. It was surely a fluke when almost all of his senior campaign staff resigned because he decided to take Calista to Greece for a two-week vacation.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:14 PM

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Then please explain why the drop off could not be attributed to Obie drop off..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Romney got less of the vote than McCain did given the respective populations at the time.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM

That’s because whites were a smaller percentage of the population in 2012 than in 2008.

Jon0815 on January 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Like I said, Newt would have made it a campaign of ideas and policies, it is what he does.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Like these “ideas and policies”???

Newt: If You Don’t Know Me By Now… (Mo Will Tell You Everything That I Don’t Want You To Know)

One of the most touching parts, I’m sure you’ll agree, is when Gingrich told John Kerry he was going to sell more copies of his global warming book for him. It almost made me weep.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Why didn’t they intervene and push out Todd Akin when everyone was demanding them to do it? They just pulled the plug and let him flail.

It doesn’t matter if the Rinos or the True Conservatives are in control, we will and would always be the “Washington Generals” because the whole democratic game is rigged and needs to be rejected.

ninjapirate on January 4, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Because it was illegal to do so. Todd won the primary fair and square. He was the Republican on the ticket period. No way to change that unless some one could convince him to drop out of the race.

Fix the primary to require a real winner but otherwise support whoever won because Todd Akin was much better than Clair. We were idiots to not support Todd and to demand he drop out was pure insanity. Only an insane party would do that. Only a STUPID PARTY that could care less about winning elections. One that put some kind of weird litmus test on candidates.

Todd did not lose Todd was stabbed in the back by STUPID REPUBLICANS that would rather see Harry Reid and Clair McCaskel and Chriss Coons in the Senate instead of three Republican that were too socially conservative for them.

You do not go and stab someone in the back. Go and endorse the opposition candidate (Nevada) then blame the person you stabbed in the back for losing. All the while telling everyone who will listen what a horrible person they are.

The GOP SUCKS with idiots now running it.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Can you back that up??..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Logic at its best.

They couldn’t bother to vote against President Obama since they are too pure and conservative. Mitt Romney had healthcare and one or two other blots. Which didn’t let the challengers kill himin the primaries.

With that mindset, they deserve what they are letting all of us get.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Maybe that buys moderates a tiny bit of leeway among the base to push more “electable” candidates.

Wasn’t Mitt Romney the more “electable” candidate?
sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 6:59 PM

Yes, he was.
Just not electable enough….

verbaluce on January 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Comrade Alan Grayson Survives A s s a ssination Attempt!

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:11 PM

LOL

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Heck unless I heard wrong, POTUS got half of the active duty military votes.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:13 PM

I think you heard wrong. That was true only for virginia military. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/fox-news-exit-poll-summary/

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:18 PM

The GOP SUCKS with idiots now running it.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Go listen to Chair Reince Priebus and the Virginia Governor.

Then go listen to Hillary Clinton and DWS.

What did you say again?

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:19 PM

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Conservatives made up a larger share of the electorate than in 2008 and voted more heavily for the Republican than in 2008. Check that link I just posted. We showed up.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:20 PM

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:18 PM

I was fact checking. Thank you.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Romneybots for evah!!!

trigon on January 4, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Need to make sure their spot on Romney’s god planet remains reserved for them.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:20 PM

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:19 PM

It doesn’t matter how reasonable they sound. People don’t want “reasonable” anymore. That’s what the GOP doesn’t get. People want big flashy solutions. The GOP is simply not offering anything big and flashy. they’re too timid, too cowed by the constant barrage of negative publicity.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Stupid is thy name! Seriously going to attack Newt from that angle with Romney hanging around your neck? SERIOUSLY?

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:22 PM

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM

..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:20 PM

I don’t know.

The alleged or real despair bothers me.

I see a reflection of the same dispirited comments I hear here coming from from Dems who wish every one of you gave up and moved to Ruby Ridge.

With all the ammo they have stockpiled, they really want you guys to give up and try something stupid.

The final solution.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Better a Democrat than some Charlie Crist/Arnold Schwarzenegger clone who may as well be a Democrat because he always votes that way when it really matters. If that fat piece of s*** LaTourette is behind someone, I’m against him…and would support a Democrat to defeat him/her/it.

fitzfong on January 4, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Then please explain why the drop off could not be attributed to Obie drop off..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Turnout was down for both Republicans and Democrats, falling 4.2 percentage points for the Democrats from 33.0 percent of eligible citizens in 2008 to 28.8 this year; and 1.2 percentage points for the GOP from 28.4 in 2008 to 27.2 this year.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2012/11/2012-election-turnout-dips-below-2008-and-2004-levels-number-eligible-vo

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3