The Republican war on Republicans

posted at 12:31 pm on January 13, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The endless navel gazing following significant GOP losses in the last election is far from over, and not all of it is pointless. We have people talking about significant policy changes in the platform to make the Republican brand more salable in national races, as well as ideas geared toward expanding the tent and bringing in a more diverse voter base. But Scott Rasmussen has a new editorial out this week where he believes he’s identified another issue to be tackled. There are, as he states rather directly, a number of “establishment GOP” types in D.C. who seem to have determined that the big problem with the Republican Party is all of those Republican voters.

Politico explained that while Washington Democrats have always viewed GOP voters as a problem, Washington Republicans “in many a post-election soul-searching session” have come to agree. More precisely, the article said the party’s Election 2012 failures have “brought forth one principal conclusion from establishment Republicans: They have a primary problem.”

As seen from the halls of power, the problem is that Republican voters think it’s OK to replace incumbent senators and congressman who don’t represent the views of their constituents. In 2012, for example, Republican voters in Indiana dumped longtime Sen. Richard Lugar in a primary battle.

This infuriated establishment Republicans for two reasons. First, because they liked Lugar and the way he worked. Second, because the replacement candidate was flawed and allowed Democrats to win what should have been a safe Republican seat.

Scott goes on to say that observers are noticing a growing inclination in beltway GOP power centers to circle the wagons and make it harder for the unwashed masses to mount primary challenges to their media tested selections and proven winners. And I agree with his assessment that this is a fine strategy if your only concern is winning. But at what cost?

Before we get too carried away, let’s not throw the whole “winning” baby out with the bathwater here. If you don’t win, you don’t get to govern. But if your base feels that you’ve lost sight of your principles in the effort to win, they won’t turn out for you and the process becomes a self-defeating death spiral. By the same token, as difficult as it may be for some folks to accept, it is undeniable that the professional political class – or “the elite” as so many of you like to say – bring some important skills to the table.

Chief among these is the mountain of background research, tools, resources and experience required to conduct extensive vetting of new entrants to the political ring. While a rising red tide of grassroots enthusiasm for a new face is not only useful, but vital to a big win, the excitable hoi polloi are also frequently lacking in the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. Critics like to point to some of the really high profile losers such as Christine O’Donnell whenever this discussion comes up, but it happens at lower levels all across the nation.

In a race which went virtually unreported, the newly redrawn NY-22 district saw a Tea Party challenge in the 2012 primary to a GOP incumbent who was viewed as being too far to the left. The challenger they selected was a local Tea Party leader who turned out to be an unemployed guy who had failed to even be elected mayor in his home village and had supposedly lost an earlier business he started for not paying his taxes. In this case it turned out that the incumbent went on to win the primary in a landslide and then beat the Democrat by a similar margin. But what if he hadn’t? A seat in a reliably Republican leaning district could have once again been lost and gone to a flunky of the previous Democratic incumbent once all the news came fully to light during the general election race.

That’s just one cautionary tale among many. So how does this relate to the point that Rasmussen is making? He offers hints of a solution which should be worth a look.

Mature party leaders would spend a lot more time listening to Republican voters rather than further insulating themselves from those voters. They would try to understand why just 37 percent of Republicans nationwide believe the economy is fair. They would give serious thought to why just half of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of House Speaker John Boehner, the highest-ranking elected Republican in the nation. They would acknowledge that government spending in America has gone up in every year since 1954 regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge.

Then mature party leaders would chart a realistic course to address these concerns and share those plans with the voters. To succeed, this course would have to include some painful medicine for the establishment, such as giving up corporate welfare programs that benefit their friends and allies. It also would require helping Republican voters identify primary candidates who challenge the establishment but could be effective on the campaign trail.

Tying these points together, D.C. Republican leaders can still hold on to their power and influence if they listen to those they are ostensibly leading and then use the tools at their disposal to work with grass roots activists rather than against them. If the voters are unhappy with an incumbent, fine. Don’t just fight them by backing the incumbent with unlimited money and then act sullen toward the challenger if they win. The better course is to get to work vetting the potential choices being put forth by the grass roots, pointing out lethal flaws if they exist and helping them identify challengers who are both ideologically palatable to the base and electable in the general race. It means not simply tamping down the impulse to keep fighting to the death for the status quo, but also demonstrating the strength to stand up to activists who are making untenable choices and saying, “Look, we hear you. But that’s not going to work. Let’s find someone who will.”

Or is that just crazy talk?


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 4 5 6

Five hundred and first.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 8:12 PM

georgeofthedesert on January 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM

.
It would be much quicker and easier…to take back the Republican party.

The tea-party took solace in the 2010 midterm results and got a little complacent.

Mid-Terms turn out considerably less Low-Info-Voters.

There’s plenty of time to get organized and start the purge.

GOPe knows this…and they’re worried.

Prepare for a fight with the old-guard and retake the party.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:31 PM

.
NOW, we’re talking !: )

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 8:17 PM

DNC turnout was low in 2012 as it was in 2010 to compare an off to an on year is dishonest.

The rest of what you seem to be saying is you are right it was the message but I will never admit that no matter what.

What shadowy figure. Priebus is the GOP head how is that shadowy? The GOPe were very up front with their anti Tea Party message. Very fast to dump all over real conservatives. Nothing shadowy about that except they did try to hide what they were doing by finding stupid excuses to dump all over conservatives. I mean Romney made it crystal clear he was not going to take anything away from anyone. This is just made up of thin air excuses as to why the GOPe lost. Pure lies. Arrogant and condescending.

PS. I have dyslexia. It does make it hard sometimes see mistakes in post. Shoot me. Think I got it right that time sorry.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I never harp on typos. Other people do but I see that as the refuge of someone who can’t make a better point.

I know it’s not fair to compare 2010 to 2012 because midterms and presidential elections have very different makeups; I went there because you did first. You appeared to be critical of Romney for not using what you viewed as the message of the 2010 election. If the 2010 and 2012 electorates are different (and I agree they are) then why should the exact same message work the exact same way?

So Preibus is the one pulling all the strings keeping conservatives down? To what point and purpose? What were these stupid excuses to dump all over conservatives (and which conservatives got dumped on by them)?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 8:19 PM

True, and possibly correct, as well. I just refuse to believe a majority of the voters are that entitlement-minded. I know that I personally decided not to vote based on Mitt’s democrat-lite message and history.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 7:07 PM

I don’t like to believe it either but every day I grow more and more afraid it’s true. When I see pictures that are supposed to be from Tea Party rallies where a seasoned citizen is holding up a sign about keeping government’s hands off of Medicare a little bit of that hope inside me dies a painful death.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Enjoy a hardy dose of your 0. Pass the salt.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 8:27 PM

When I see pictures that are supposed to be from Tea Party rallies where a seasoned citizen is holding up a sign about keeping government’s hands off of Medicare…

I’ve never seen one of those, and if I did, I would suggest it was a liberal there playing Moby for the willing press.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 8:34 PM

We’re not going to take the party back. The elitists are too entrenched and as you can see here, too many of the base agree with them. The Republicans are going to keep going as they are, keep killing off the Sarah Palins and the Allen Wests and they will keep on losing. They don’t even mind that much. The paychecks keep right on coming.

SurferDoc on January 13, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Reagan ran as a conservative. He understood that when you run and stand strong for something, people will come to you as long as you are not off-putting. Romney stood for nothing except personal ambition and Executive Office Building space for his hangers-on.

victor82 on January 13, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Stop trying to reduce Reagan to a pile of conservative positions and a pulse. If we’ve learned anything from the 2010 and 2012 elections it’s that it takes WAY more than that to win.

Reagan had a successful track record as governor of the largest state in the union. Reagan was warm and likable. Reagan could give a great speech and sound fantastic when he did it. Michael Deaver (Reagan’s press secretary) once asked Reagan what he brought to the Oval Office that no president had before and Reagan’s answer was that from his time in Hollywood he knew what like to be photographed from every angle so he knew how to look and act and do to convey power and strength through a camera, and that allowed him to manipulate his image in the media despite the media’s best efforts to destroy him. And yes, Reagan was a conservative. All of that, from his long track record and experience, to his personality, to his image stagecraft to his policies contributed to make him the man he was. You do him a disservice and us today potentially great harm if you ignore the whole picture.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 8:37 PM

The only “primary problems” Republicans have are the Democrat Super Delegates, and ‘open primaries’.

Abolish those, and the Republican “primary problem” solves itself.

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM

.
What do the superdelegates have to do with anything? They only affect how the Democrats select their nominee. The Republican party doesn’t have superdelegates.

Even if the Dems wanted to select their nominee by holding a seance and having FDR, JFK and LBJ’s ghosts choose the nominee, that is their business.

(I agree with you that open primaries are often problematic.)

J.S.K. on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

.
The Democrat Super Delegates disenfranchise the regular Democrat voters in the primaries.

I stand by an ancient statement of mine, that Hillary would have won the 2008 Democrat primary, were it not for the Super Delegates.

The 2012 primary gave the Dems an incumbent, so Democrat voters “crossed-over”, where they could.

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Stop trying to reduce Reagan to a pile of conservative positions and a pulse. If we’ve learned anything from the 2010 and 2012 elections it’s that it takes WAY more than that to win.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Since Romney had no credibility on any conservative issue how does that follow? We should have learned that squishy moderates that believe in nothing don’t inspire any faith in their non-existent message.

Bill Clinton has a likability factor but that didn’t mean conservatives wanted to vote for him. Reagan’s conservatism and his belief in those things is what was really different about him. It wasn’t like Boehner, McCain, Romney, or the rest of the clown circus who spout off platitudes and mean none of it.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Anybody notice what we have “leading” the GOP. Bonehead and McConnell,
McCain, Graham and others. They are all suited up, the only things missing are the lapel flower, the condolence wreaths and the eternity metal box. We complain about Dem Congress dinosaurs, we have more than enough of our own. Please lets set term limits, you know like when you hit 60 you have one more term then you have to retire. I seriously expect to see Pelosi one day start cackling and her face is going to crack and fall off.

stormridercx4 on January 13, 2013 at 8:57 PM

The problem with most of the navel gazing going on is the lack of willingness to acknowledge what the GOP has always been. The GOP has always been a left of center party. Indeed, it is the original big government party. The idea that the establishment has lost of sight of its principles is laughable. Its principles have always been about power so it can hand out teh goodies to its cronies. It was always a crony capitalist party. That’s what the Whigs were about as well, and teh GOP is simply reorganized Whiggery.

If you want a true conservative party you will have to start one. The GOP is beyond saving, and many have already tried to take it over and failed.

Your column is just drug addled raving. The establishment hates the base and just wants its votes on election day. The rest of the time it can go twist in the wind for all the establishment cares.

Quartermaster on January 13, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Bill Clinton has a likability factor but that didn’t mean conservatives wanted to vote for him. Reagan’s conservatism and his belief in those things is what was really different about him. It wasn’t like Boehner, McCain, Romney, or the rest of the clown circus who spout off platitudes and mean none of it.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Likeability isn’t everything but neither are policy positions. Most if not all of us here now are committed ideologues so we focus almost exclusively on the latter but not everyone is like us. I think we delude ourselves if we try to find why Reagan was successful politically and focus only on his policy positions.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 9:24 PM

And Deaver, was a blanc mange weasel, just like Schmidt, that’s not what Reagan was about, it was conviction about conservative principles.

narciso on January 13, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Bill Clinton was a low end grifter, who pretended to be a New Democrat, but he was the one who facilitated the subprime avalanche by signing the CRA revisions, by DOJ pressure on the banks.

narciso on January 13, 2013 at 9:30 PM

All it takes for evil to triumph is good men to do nothing, thanks for doing nothing.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Your whole argument is a “lesser of two evils”. I voted for Romney for that reason, NOT because he was the candidate I wanted. But I told anyone that would listen that if Romney, THEIR PICK, lost, they lost me as a voter until they put up someone I WANT to vote for, not one I’m GUILT TRIPPED into voting for. You had me for 2012, no further.

Well guess what – Romney lost. He lost against a dead fish in a barrel. And the Repubs lost me. You don’t own my vote, and the ones who voted FOR Obama are the ones to blame for this mess. A deliberate choice to NOT vote is just as legit as a vote. Hell, I wish ballots had NONE OF THE ABOVE, and if that pick won out, the election must be repeated with NONE of the prior candidates.

Don’t try to appeal to people just to vote AGAINST someone, put someone up that people want to vote FOR. Unless the Repubs put forth an actual, honest to Christ conservative, I’m staying home. What you don’t understand is that there is only a c00chie-hair’s worth of difference between the parties now. The debt ceiling mess made that painfully apparent.

Saltyron on January 13, 2013 at 9:32 PM

I think that the Establishment has failed to realize that there are some folks out her who would rather see Democrats advance the Deomcrat agenda. To them it’s far better to see the knife coming, rather than be stabbed in the Back.

Winning for the sake of winning gets you nowhere – which is why we constatnly hear, well NOT IS NOT THE TIME.

For crying out loud, from 2002 to 2006 you had the whole enchelada and you didn’t do it, when is the time?

jaydee_007 on January 13, 2013 at 9:34 PM

It would be much quicker and easier…to take back the Republican party.

There’s plenty of time to get organized and start the purge.

GOPe knows this…and they’re worried.

Prepare for a fight with the old-guard and retake the party.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Too late for that, I am afraid. The GOP is rotten to its core.

Either way, er are looking at many years in the wilderness for the conservative movement. The GOP will continue to erode, it will never retake the Senate and keep losing House Seats. The presidency is gone.

A new party is the only solution, even though it may take a generation to regain power.

Norwegian on January 13, 2013 at 9:34 PM

I think we delude ourselves if we try to find why Reagan was successful politically and focus only on his policy positions.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 9:24 PM

You missed the point. Romney had policy positions as well. In fact he had policy positions that everyone at one point or another agreed with.

Few really believed him, and even those who did took his sincerity with a grain of salt.

People believed Reagan meant what he said, and even if you disagreed with him that made a big difference in and of itself. I respect Christian who believe what they are saying far more than those who just mouth the words, even if the words are identical.

Reagan quickly said, “No, John..that ‘s not my position.” Sears reminded Reagan that, as governor of California, he had signed into law a measure that permitted abortion in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Reagan responded, “Yes, I know I did. But I have given a lot of thought since to the matter; it was a mistake and that law paved the way for abortion on demand. I now consider abortion to be murder.” Sears countered, “Well, Governor, that can be your private position, but for the purposes of this campaign, the theme will favor limited abortion.”

At that, Reagan flushed, took off his glasses and flung them across the conference table – a classic sign that he was at his maximum anger level—saying, “Listen, dammit, John…I am running for president and you are not! Got it?” End of discussion; he never looked back, never wavered in his conviction, knew that he would be flying in the face of increasing pro-abortion sentiment, and instructed us to make sure that his position ultimately became the plank of the party platform that year.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222152/reincarnating-reagan/richard-v-allen

Even if a man like this compromises, his supporters know that he will at least try to get what he believes in enacted. That may not be possible, but there is a level of trust there that someone like Romney will never get, regardless of what he says on any given day.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM

‘If the Republican Party were a business, and if it were well managed…the leadership would have seen all this coming just after the mid-terms. If we see that 60% of the party do not approve of Romney, a good manager would have gathered the highest councils and sent emissaries to the aggrieved parties to say, “What do we need to do to keep you on board and to take a winner into 2012?” Simple enough, eh? It is what any good leader would do to maintain a viable coalition, isn’t it? Does anyone see evidence that this sort of ‘management wisdom’ has been employed? Romney and the GOPE’s could have gotten in front of the Tea Party movement early on. This entire mess could have been avoided, why wasn’t it? My wife and I are re-reading Codevilla’s America’s Ruling Class, and I would recommend it to everyone. The Tea Party became an enormous threat to the Plutocratic Ruling Class. The two-headed Leviathan that has ruled American politics realized that figures like Palin would not only attack Democrats. These figures must be destroyed, even if it meant revealing that the two heads were joined at Wall Street. So…they took our enthusiasm and work, and now marginalize us for 2012. It would seem that having ‘core values’ is now the equivalent of being an ‘inflexible ideologue’. When the rulers of large institutions make diplomatic errors of this magnitude, they must deal with very high levels of animosity, perforce. It’s never been different.

Give me liberty.’

I wrote the above a year ago at NRO. Many of us knew what the story was, now it is laid bare. Take a wrecking ball through the NRC. Animosity is what they need to hear.

Gallifet on January 13, 2013 at 9:45 PM

You meant, most believed him, didn’t you, not surprising that he replaced Sears with Casey, for the balance of the campaign,

narciso on January 13, 2013 at 9:49 PM

You meant, most believed him, didn’t you…

narciso on January 13, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Romney? Even his own supporters didn’t really believe him much. They defended him but their defense was always qualified, and usually consisted of a comparison to Obama.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 9:54 PM


Romney? Even his own supporters didn’t really believe him much. They defended him but their defense was always qualified, and usually consisted of a comparison to Obama.

Yes, and then they would accuse you of being an Obama supporter, or a so-called “truecon,” often in the same breath and without a hint of irony, for ever daring to question Romney’s fitness to wear the garland of the state atop his pointy head.

Good times.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Yes, and then they would accuse you of being an Obama supporter, or a so-called “truecon,” often in the same breath and without a hint of irony, for ever daring to question Romney’s fitness to wear the garland of the state atop his pointy head.

Good times.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 10:15 PM

I could never figure out how being called a Truecon was an insult to me, and not an implied insult of themselves? I guess they disliked conservatives so much that they thought we would hate being called one, much less one that believed in the real thing?

Like one of the Palestinians telling an Israeli that they are a ‘Real Jew’. It lacks a certain bite as insults go.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 10:23 PM


Well guess what – Romney lost. He lost against a dead fish in a barrel.

I know, right? And this so-called numbers guy was so insulated from hard reality by his fawning claque of highly-paid flatterers that until the very moment he had to telephone Obama to concede he honestly thought he was going to win. I think all that hair-dye he uses pickled his brain. Or perhaps the corset he wears to hold in his paunch cut off the circulation to his head.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 10:31 PM

The Democrat Super Delegates disenfranchise the regular Democrat voters in the primaries.

listens2glenn on January 13, 2013 at 8:47 PM

If so, that is their problem. There’s nothing we need to do about that.

J.S.K. on January 13, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Unfortunately, they went from this clear, non-partisan message to becoming right wing ideologues. They allowed their voice to be hijacked by lunatics who they allowed to speak on their behalf. As a political movement, they have become toxic as a result.

I don’t believe this. I believe the tea party has been systematically disparaged by Democrats and the MSM to make them completely unpalatable to the citizenry. Think about the attacks about them being racist, right-wing nuts, they were false but allowed to continue by the Republican Party. I believe the establishment thought the tea party was as much a threat to their power as the Democrats did, so they joined them in the disparagement.

I believe the establishment has made a huge mistake and, after Boehner and company completely screw up the next negotiation, we’re going to see the tea party opt out of any Republican support and go for a 3rd party. Pravda and Izvestia will never report the truth about them so they’re going to have to win over people on their own. It shouldn’t be that hard because they’re your neighbors, aunts, uncles, grandparents, parents, co-workers and friends. These are people that care where this country goes, how it gets there, and how all of our children succeed. Just because Republicans and Democrats want to bankrupt our country doesn’t mean the tea party doesn’t have better ideas.

bflat879 on January 13, 2013 at 10:49 PM

I’m sure the Republican Party will be just fine if we conservatives have a last-straw moment and stop voting GOP. They really don’t need us. They’ll still get rich at our expense and continue to do nothing about catastrophic national debt that won’t stop rising because the maniacs in DC can’t stop spending revenue faster than the IRS can haul it in. I’m sure GOP politicians all have their fortunes safely stored in foreign bank accounts, so they’ll be fine without us.

Aitch748 on January 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM

I’m sure the Republican Party will be just fine if we conservatives have a last-straw moment and stop voting GOP. They really don’t need us. They’ll still get rich at our expense and continue to do nothing about catastrophic national debt that won’t stop rising because the maniacs in DC can’t stop spending revenue faster than the IRS can haul it in. I’m sure GOP politicians all have their fortunes safely stored in foreign bank accounts, so they’ll be fine without us.

Aitch748 on January 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM

The Republican Party would easily be reduced to a 10-15% party if the Conservative bloc abandoned them outright. Might not seem like much, but with the RINOs wealthy backers, they could be just above the proverbial Mendoza line of relevancy.

And of course, until they join the Dems (like they SHOULD) they’ll play perpetual spoiler in every electoral race.

I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be a Conservative Party, rather, the opposite. But we need to know what we will be up against. Not that the founders of the original Republican Party didn’t see similar odds after Millard Fillmore killed off the Whigs…

Myron Falwell on January 13, 2013 at 11:07 PM

I’m late to the thread. Did KingGold come in and tell us all the Conservatives are destroying the party? Did he blame the TEA Party for everything?

portlandon on January 13, 2013 at 11:10 PM

I find it funny that the establishment has a primary problem. They used to say we have to back the winner. But they never did that if their candidate lost. Instead, they’d do their best to make sure the winner lost just so they could claim that he/she was a bad candidate. And they wonder why they have a primary problem. The establishment puts up their own terrible candidates like Todd Akin. But they’re so two-faced about it that they turn around and claim he was the Tea Party candidate, yet he was probably the most hated candidate by the Tea Party.

One thing is true though. If the Tea Party doesn’t like a candidate, they shouldn’t just vote against the incumbent. They should put up someone who has a real shot at winning.

MrX on January 13, 2013 at 11:18 PM

portlandon on January 13, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Did True_King show up to tell us the GOP will betray us??..:)

Dire Straits on January 13, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Did True_King show up to tell us the GOP will betray us??..:)

Dire Straits on January 13, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Has True King ever been wrong about that?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM

Rand Paul and Marco Rubio showed the RINOs that a conservative can win. Toomey was not the PA GOP establishment pick, but he won the primary and the general.

Wethal on January 13, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Part of the problem is we have armchair generals and conventional wisdomists browbeating fellow Republicans into believing that this or that heart throb is the Real Deal…so we get stuck with the McCains, the Perrys, the Huckabees, the Christies, the Romneys and so on.

They will pretend to embrace conservative principles only if it helps them to get elected or re-elected. They’ll go after unions and public employees like there’s no tomorrow, but won’t even question Obama’s credentials and ideologies…not even back in the 2008 elections on the campaign trail.

In short, they are incapable of publicly addressing controversial core issues and will pick and choose targets in order to increase their street creds with many of us.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 13, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Has True King ever been wrong about that?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM

Yes..But your mileage may vary..:)

Dire Straits on January 13, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Yes..But your mileage may vary..:)

Dire Straits on January 13, 2013 at 11:31 PM

And you didn’t provide any obvious examples because, well… they are just too darn obvious, right?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 11:36 PM

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Neither does True_King provide obvious examples..:)

Dire Straits on January 13, 2013 at 11:38 PM

But evil? No.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Evil yes.

Mitt Romney told Holocaust survivors that they could eat Muslim blessed food instead of Jewish blessed kosher food because it was all the same stuff anyway. He stopped the Nursing Homes in Mass from serving Kosher food while forcing them to serve Muslim blessed food that cost more.

Sorry that is about as evil of thing to do I can think of.

He also forced Catholics to abandon their faith and stop their adoption services even though they were handeling 50% of all adoptions in Mass. This because they would not allow Homosexuals to adopt. Now Homosexuals could go elsewhere but no Mitt forced the Catholics out.

Evil pure evil again.

I could go on. To me it is evil to claim to be pro life when you are really totally pro choice but that is somewhat subjective.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 11:39 PM

The GOP will retrain you

tommy71 on January 13, 2013 at 11:46 PM

I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be a Conservative Party, rather, the opposite. But we need to know what we will be up against. Not that the founders of the original Republican Party didn’t see similar odds after Millard Fillmore killed off the Whigs…

Myron Falwell on January 13, 2013 at 11:07 PM

Exactly.

The RINOS want power. 10-15% will never give them that. Thus they will go to the DNC. Some already have or came from there.

The 2010 election proved where the votes are. Conservative. Congress has a sub 15% approval rating because the Reps never do the bidding of the people that put them there. If they actually did that would go way up and many more would then vote for Tea Party candidates. I would imagine that within a few years the GOP would be forgotten just like the Whiggs were.

But if we do nothing the GOPe will no doubt nominate Chris Christie 2016 Odumbos wing man. No thanks.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 11:46 PM

GOP civil war. Each side pointing and whining…..but they started it. A bunch of adolescents. Pathetic. Especially when the dems are in power.

tommy71 on January 13, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Please don’t let the door hit you on the way out..:)

Dire Straits on January 13, 2013 at 11:53 PM

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:31 PM

.
Too late for that, I am afraid. The GOP is rotten to its core.

Either way, er are looking at many years in the wilderness for the conservative movement. The GOP will continue to erode, it will never retake the Senate and keep losing House Seats. The presidency is gone.

A new party is the only solution, even though it may take a generation to regain power.

Norwegian on January 13, 2013 at 9:34 PM

.
I don’t believe “we’re looking at many years in the wilderness for the conservative movement.”

I don’t believe it’s “too late” to retake the Republican Party.

But that doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to believe it.

BTW, thanks for your honesty.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 12:11 AM

The Democrat Super Delegates disenfranchise the regular Democrat voters in the primaries.

listens2glenn
on January 13, 2013 at 8:47 PM

.
If so, that is their problem. There’s nothing we need to do about that.

J.S.K. on January 13, 2013 at 10:47 PM

.
It drives Democrat registered voters to “cross-over”, so I believe it is our problem.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 11:46 PM

THIS.

Myron Falwell on January 14, 2013 at 12:22 AM

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Just no third parties..:)

Dire Straits on January 14, 2013 at 12:29 AM

Stop trying to rewrite history to make your wing of the Party look good. You GOP Party Regulars couldn’t beat Hitler for Mayor of Miami Beach.

victor82 on January 13, 2013 at 7:44 PM

That’s because they’d run Himmler, because he was not Hitler.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Shut the thread!

Dunedainn on January 14, 2013 at 12:59 AM

Please don’t let the door hit you on the way out..:)

Dire Straits on January 13, 2013 at 11:53 PM

Well look who decided to come out and play. It’s Mister Smiley, come ’round to shower us with his smug emoticon goodness.

Dunedainn on January 14, 2013 at 1:13 AM

Dunedainn on January 14, 2013 at 1:13 AM

If you say so..:)

Dire Straits on January 14, 2013 at 1:14 AM

GOP civil war. Each side pointing and whining…..but they started it. A bunch of adolescents. Pathetic. Especially when the dems are in power.

tommy71 on January 13, 2013 at 11:52 PM

True, but you’re assuming that the Dems being in power is somehow bad for the GOP?

I’m beginning to look at it in such a way as how folks can make money even on decreasing stock values, or wars, or natural disasters.

They aren’t concerned at all about us, but it makes me feel better to pretend that they actually do from time to time.

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 14, 2013 at 1:17 AM

If you say so..:)

Dire Straits on January 14, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Dire, you know that beer you’re renting? Seems as though someone is looking for a shower. Go ahead, piss on his shoes, dare ya. Go ahead. ; )

Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 1:24 AM

Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 1:24 AM

No..Seems like a “waste” to me..:)

Dire Straits on January 14, 2013 at 1:25 AM

Dire Straits on January 14, 2013 at 1:25 AM

Hold your pee it is then. ; )

Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 1:27 AM

I now realize the Republican Party is trying to emulate all the failed political parties in American History…

We have Whigs, Know Nothings, American Tories, and god knows what else.

All I want is a party that believes in a reasonably small federal government, some state’s rights, gun rights, a decent military, respects the constitution, but does not want to spend billions on world wide democracy projects, or believe in global warming witchcraft, or believe is bizarre obscure Mexican / Asian / Opus Dei plots to conquer American from within, or hereditary rule.

Let me know what that political party come about…

William Eaton on January 14, 2013 at 1:56 AM

just 37 percent of Republicans nationwide believe the economy is fair

Capitalism is never fair. Especially now with goverment enforced racism and sexism.

Mormontheman on January 14, 2013 at 2:18 AM

But Scott Rasmussen has a new editorial out this week where he believes he’s identified another issue to be tackled. There are, as he states rather directly, a number of “establishment GOP” types in D.C. who seem to have determined that the big problem with the Republican Party is all of those Republican voters.

This is news?

Still, it’s good to see the issue taken seriously. We have way too many Republicans distancing themselves from their “grass roots” in order to win elections, then somehow not winning them. Apparently, the geniuses are forgetting that the reason they’re called “grass roots” is because there are so many of them, and when you ignore your “grass roots” for positions that are democratically elected, you’re probably throwing away that election.

If the nominee in 2012 had been someone the base actually wanted, we would now be talking about the failed one-term presidency of Barack Obama.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 14, 2013 at 3:26 AM

I see that the “smartest people in the room” still will not admit that squishiness does not win an election.

kingsjester on January 14, 2013 at 6:51 AM

There’s gonna have to be some sort of coup in the GOP. Failing that, all we can do is hope for a Gorbachev situation: someone gets into a position of leadership and/or influence in the GOP that we think is just another run-of-the-mill go-along-to-get-along establishment putz, but then surprises everyone by making sweeping reforms and giving the grass-roots people access and influence in the GOP again.

As I see it now – especially after the last convention and all the firings Boneless did – the Republican Party is a corporatocracy. Bought and paid for by the “too big to fail” corporate interests. And they know they can give lip service to the people, but can rest assured knowing that any third party they threaten to defect to will ultimately fail as long as the GOP has their loyal sugar-daddies.

TMOverbeck on January 14, 2013 at 7:55 AM

but also demonstrating the strength to stand up to activists

They’ve demonstrated their ability to stand up to activists. They should try standing up to Democrats.

RightKlik on January 14, 2013 at 8:02 AM

the sad truth is this:

Republicans were rank hypocrites for blindly following GW for 8 years while he started new entitlement programs and spent like a drunken sailor, invaded Iraq on false agendas, and. Expanded the power of the executive with hideous violations of the Constitution.

So now, the. GOP has zero credibility with voters.

It wasn’t all Bush’s fault that the economy imploded on his watch. But, on top of everything else?

Debacle.

I’ve heard some lip service to apologetics for it, but not much can change the fact that actions have consequences. The gop is experiencing them now.

mountainaires on January 14, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Start with the NRSC.

FlaMurph on January 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM

I see that the “smartest people in the room” still will not admit that squishiness does not win an election.

kingsjester on January 14, 2013 at 6:51 AM

.
How squishy was the fanaticism to not raise taxes on the rich- those mean 1% ers ? Not one dime, and Mitt held the line on thst – as I recall. Voters shoulda loved that conviction to protect a fragile economy. Or not.

How did that turn out?

FlaMurph on January 14, 2013 at 8:29 AM

The media meme is almost complete. It must be true, I saw it on tv.

Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM

FlaMurph on January 14, 2013 at 8:29 AM

I pulled the lever for Romney. I had no choice. However, he did not campaign as hard against Obama as he did against his fellow Republicans. And, the whole country noticed that.

kingsjester on January 14, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Emboldening tyranny of the majority (“Eat the rich”) may win an election but it weakens and divides the country even further.

Fallon on January 14, 2013 at 9:02 AM

Losers bickering among themselves for peanuts.

Sherman1864 on January 14, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Emboldening tyranny of the majority (“Eat the rich”) may win an election but it weakens and divides the country even further.
Fallon on January 14, 2013 at 9:02 AM

And that’s how Obama likes it.

Sherman1864 on January 14, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Romney was the pick of the Est. Rs from the gitgo. The field was weak and they believed no one could beat the Won anyway. It was almost a throwaway election. Romney was the godfather of ocare and then turned around to promise he’d repeal it if elected. Who believed that? The Won promised no tax increases for those under $250K, wine and roses for women and better ophones for everyone. When the Rs snubbed Sarah at the R convention, I knew it was over for them. It was a huge poke in the eye for the base and voila, our fate was sealed. Today, the mistaken beliefs continue with Rubio as our face to the hispanics.

Kissmygrits on January 14, 2013 at 9:20 AM

We need a Second Party, now.

Subotai Bahadur on January 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Well said. It’s the consent judgment to not fight voter fraud that gets me the most. How the hell anyone can do that given our constitutional structure and call themselves a patriot, is beyond me.

totherightofthem on January 14, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Emboldening tyranny of the majority (“Eat the rich”) may win an election but it weakens and divides the country even further.

Fallon on January 14, 2013 at 9:02 AM

.
The “Rich” got eaten anyway, just like Slick Willie ate them in the 90′s.

I’m just asking, How many votes did that inevitability cost Romney/Ryan?

Its more than we want to admit.

FlaMurph on January 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Too late for that, I am afraid. The GOP is rotten to its core.

Either way, er are looking at many years in the wilderness for the conservative movement. The GOP will continue to erode, it will never retake the Senate and keep losing House Seats. The presidency is gone.

A new party is the only solution, even though it may take a generation to regain power.

Norwegian on January 13, 2013 at 9:34 PM

I don’t believe that for a second.

I heard the same tune in 1980 just before reagan was elected, and in 2010 just before we tendered the biggest midterm blowout in history.

It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now.

Tim_CA on January 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I heard the same tune in 1980 just before reagan was elected, and in 2010 just before we tendered the biggest midterm blowout in history.

It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now.

Tim_CA on January 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM

.
Exactly.
How we forget the days of yore, and 2010.
2010 was not that long ago for all the fatalism out there. Fix the NRSC- fight the battles locally/regionally in the mid-terms.

POTUS race has become a beauty contest for the American Idol voting masses, and Shillary will be next beauty coming down the pike. At least she won’t be trotting around with J-Zee or pimpin with a limpin….will she?

FlaMurph on January 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Lol! Who really thinks that the eSTABrepubs/rinos, give one iota of a SHIITE, what the masses think or do. They know that as long as they keep colluding with the TRAITOR-in-chief, they will maintain their power. Whatever you peons want to think or do, is your problem. Like I’ve said in the past, It’s time to bring back “Tar & Feathers”!

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

paratisi on January 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Mitt Romney is not germane to the point I’m making. Yes I know Reagan said what he meant and meant what he said and that’s why conservative ideologues (of which I am one) loved him. My point is that’s not the only reason he was loved, especially by people who aren’t conservative ideologues, which most people aren’t. 49 states didn’t come from his conservatism alone any more than Richard Nixon’s 49 states came from his big government tendencies.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Bye the Bye,

What did Mark Levin say and think about this latest commie crap out of Obama’s liar pie hole?

http://www.marklevinshow.com

RINO’s do not want to know.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 14, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Did True_King show up to tell us the GOP will betray us??..:)

Dire Straits on January 13, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Has True King ever been wrong about that?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 11:21 PM

I’ve never once been wrong. And yes, they will do it again. Hell, they just betrayed you and your children AGAIN didn’t they?

The GOP is now the party of tax increases.

Soon they will be the party of debt (even more so than they already are) once they give Obama another debt ceiling increase with meaningless “cuts” attached to the increase to provide themselves cover.

Soon they will be the party of gun control once Obama passes executive orders to gut the 2nd Amendment because they will do nothing.

How many more examples are there? Almost countless.

The GOP will betray you

True_King on January 14, 2013 at 5:46 PM

The GOP will betray you

True_King on January 14, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Let the purge begin.

Target – Midterms.

(See 2010 – lather – repeat)

Tim_CA on January 14, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Most sensible thing I’ve read today. Republicans – Establishment Republicans – have come to see their seats as entitlements, even hereditary entitlements. (cough – Bush – cough). Enough! If we wanted self-absorbed spend-o-crats in office who do nothing but shovel pork, we could vote Democrat and be on the winning side tomorrow. Those of us that still believe this country has a (maybe) future would like a real choice, please.

Gearbox on January 14, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6