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 2 3 4 6

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 2:04 P

Toomey was not the PA GOP establishment pick, though. They tried to get Ridge in to oppose him.

Wethal on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

So the GOP elite that gets elected doesn’t represent the party too well…

Since the GOP as a party doesn’t represent its base.

When the GOP elite don’t work with the base, they lose on the National scale and face pushback on the more local scale either via Primaries or just not voting for them.

With that just a couple of questions:

1) Why does the GOP elite continue to get elected? If it is ‘all about winning’ then look at the Left and Democrats and see the lack of morals and ethics on display. That is the end of that road as it is all about POWER not about GOVERNING.

2) Why does the GOP base stay with the GOP? The GOP moved the Whigs out over a couple of elections cycles going from basically nothing to a National party in that period of time. If the GOP is truly not representing the base which is the activist and essential part of the party to turnout, then just why does the base stay in the party? They could remove power by taking over the State GOP apparatus and changing the by-laws to remove the elite power structure, of course… but the elites know the pay-off system quite well. So what are the chances that a corrupt power structure can be internally reformed when it is entrenched at the top?

Mind you the Democrats have fully become the entrenched, special interest, more money and power party by never seeking to remove that self-same duplicate structure in their party. And it shows.

Part of my support for the COD and others who fail is that they are useful kamikaze missions to hit the power structure of the elite in the personnel dept. Works, too. The elites are getting desperate when they see committed attacks against them… yet they refuse to reform. At some point something gives.

There might not be enough elite left in another two cycles to matter… if the Nation survives, that is.

The base might decamp to go 3rd Party and take the Tea Party with them… when they aren’t the same group of individuals.

An imploded, rump GOP for an election cycle or two will leave the apparatchiks without a real support structure and a new party without an elite system and designed to be accountable to the lowest levels and not funnel power and cash upwards. That will push the elites either to get with the program or become Democrats.

Or we might be stuck with this stupid, asinine GOP elite structure until the base finally decides to cut it off from all external support as members. That includes the RNC and the Congressional Committees as well. That is the liquidation option which is being fought and hard as the elite put a death grip on control of the party to their ends. Removing them requires the State level apparatus to fall out of their hands in the majority…that is a slow but ongoing process and requires that the local ‘leaders’ get changed often on the diaper principle: they smell too much when left on too long.

Which goes first: the elites, the party or the base?

Remove the 3rd and the other two go away and you get a new party.

Remove the 2nd and you get a new party.

Remove the 1st and you will have dissolved the other two out from them while they remain in place.

Its up to the elites if they want to keep the GOP around. The path they are on doesn’t do that.

ajacksonian on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

He is absolutely right… You cannot just go and elect the guy or gal who screech the loudest red meat rhetoric and then goes on to f*** himself/herself and the elections by saying something very stupid or by finding out that he has a totally f***ed up history and character…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM

… like a history writing and being in favor of universal healthcare, being a liberal, decrying conservative and conservatism, etc – that kind of “totally f***ed up history and character”? Yeah, we should definitely shut up and let the establishment pick candidates, or we might wind up with someone like *that*, right?

Midas on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM


You cannot just go and elect the guy or gal who screech the loudest red meat rhetoric and then goes on to f*** himself/herself and the elections by saying something very stupid or by finding out that he has a totally f***ed up history and character…

If the choice is between your screecher and a Romney-Castle RINO then I will vote for the screecher every time. The primary function of a political party is to recruit competitive candidates whose views are consistent with their own voters. They haven’t been doing that. Hence the problem.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

And I agree with his assessment that this is a fine strategy if your only concern is winning. But at what cost?

Get back to me when they start winning. 2008, 2012 ring a bell?

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.

If you are going to talk about high profile losers, then why aren’t Mitt Romney and John McCain mentioned?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Actually Codevilla is still remarkably idealistic, having been in Naval Intelligence, the CIA, a Congressional staffer, and a university lecturer, Explain how we lost to ‘the faux marine’ Blumenthal, the clueless Banshee from California, had virtually no candidate to speak of in NY against Schumer

narciso on January 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Because there are a lot more democrat voters in these states than Republicans… It is that f***ing simple…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM

If the choice is between your screecher and a Romney-Castle RINO then I will vote for the screecher every time. The primary function of a political party is to recruit competitive candidates whose views are consistent with their own voters. They haven’t been doing that. Hence the problem.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

That is because you are a stupid and a slave of the socialists…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Or we might be stuck with this stupid, asinine GOP elite structure until the base finally decides to cut it off from all external support as members. That includes the RNC and the Congressional Committees as well. That is the liquidation option which is being fought and hard as the elite put a death grip on control of the party to their ends.

ajacksonian on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Starve the Beast.

Contribute directly to conservative candidates.

Watch the current establishment suddenly turn “conservative” in order to protect their precious, high-paying jobs.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:12 PM

If you are going to talk about high profile losers, then why aren’t Mitt Romney and John McCain mentioned?

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM

There is a huge difference between an assured seat that is lost because the candidate was plain stupid and a Presidential elections in 50 states where victory is not assured by neither party… Republicans lost Senate seats in states that Romney won by ten points…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Toomey was not the PA GOP establishment pick, though. They tried to get Ridge in to oppose him.

Wethal on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

And…? Why aren’t Conservatives the Establishment?
Toomey won because he had a vetted background and didn’t say or do anything stupid. Look at some of our other Conservative candidates, we keep picking people who are practically fated to lose. You can’t tell me there aren’t Conservatives who can win somewhere out there. We can be the Establishment, we just have to try harder.

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

That is because you are a stupid and a slave of the socialists…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM

And you’d have everyone slavishly supporting the loser candidates offered up again and again by the establishment who repeatedly lose *and* don’t represent our values – but *that’s* not stupid… why?

Midas on January 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Just make sure that the “conservative” candidate does not shoot himself/herself in the head by saying something very stupid like Aiken or Murdoch, etc…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:00 PM

… Or McCain or Romney or Christie, etc. stupid statements were not limited to Conservative candidates. Or Republicans for that matter — remember “You didn’t build that”? But when the press is on your side, your stupid utterances are ignored or “clarified” while the press ignores clarifications from the conservative side.

The premise of the article has a number of flaws, selective memory being one of them. It points out Aiken and Murdoch while ignoring Cruze on the winning side and Scott Brown on the losing side.

AZfederalist on January 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

That is because you are a stupid and a slave of the socialists…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Wow. So all this time I’ve been a slave?

And stupid too?

I want reperations!….Give me something for free!

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM


That is because you are a stupid and a slave of the socialists…

So you’re saying that the party has failed in its primary function of recruiting competitive candidates whose views are consistent with GOP voters because I am “a stupid and a slave of the socialists.” Yeah, um, I’m not seeing the chain of causation between the one and the other. Would you please check to see if someone isn’t standing on your oxygen hose? Perhaps you should ring for the nurse or something.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM

… like a history writing and being in favor of universal healthcare, being a liberal, decrying conservative and conservatism, etc – that kind of “totally f***ed up history and character”? Yeah, we should definitely shut up and let the establishment pick candidates, or we might wind up with someone like *that*, right?

Midas on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Which incumbent senator in 2012 who lost his primary was for universal healthcare?… I am not saying do not challenge the incumbent with a more conservative person but make f***ing sure that this challenger is not stupid or have a shady character that will cause the loss of assured seats…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM

So you’re saying that the party has failed in its primary function of recruiting competitive candidates whose views are consistent with GOP voters because I am “a stupid and a slave of the socialists.” Yeah, um, I’m not seeing the chain of causation between the one and the other. Would you please check to see if someone isn’t standing on your oxygen hose? Perhaps you should ring for the nurse or something.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM

You idiot are saying that you will vote for a screamer who is stupid and assured to lose versus what you call a RINO a totally abused and meaningless word used by the absolutists and purists… By doing so you are giving victory to the 100% socialist candidate and hence you are a slave for the socialists….

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Rabble rabble incoherent ranting you’re a slave…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Summarized.

MelonCollie on January 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM

The premise of the article has a number of flaws, selective memory being one of them. It points out Aiken and Murdoch while ignoring Cruze on the winning side and Scott Brown on the losing side.

AZfederalist on January 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Cruz is not an idiot and he did not say anything stupid like Murdoch or Aiken… The article is not attacking “conservatives”… All what the article is saying pick a conservative but make sure that he or she is not stupid enough to f*** it up in the general elections in particular if our chances of winning a certain seat is very high…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Here is the problem Jazz.

The GOpe is at odds with the base not because of the candidates we choose but what those candidates believe.

The GOPe would like a new base, we would like new leadership. the two can not exist in peace one or the other will have to win. either the GOP returns to a small government, lower taxes type of party or it morphs into a Bush big government type of Party. Its beena fight since goldwater. And the fact of the matter is that without Reaganism which decreases the GOPe power and influence and returns that power and influence to the people the GOPe can’t win. So they lie and say what we want to hear to get our vote then act like the big government creeps they are once they get elected. It can’t last as the years go on more and more people are waking up and understanding the party of Bush and GOPe is no longer the party of Reagan.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:21 PM

what you call a RINO a totally abused and meaningless word used by the absolutists and purists…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Says the RINO.

Hilarious!

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:21 PM

There is a huge difference between an assured seat that is lost because the candidate was plain stupid and a Presidential elections in 50 states where victory is not assured by neither party…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

If you can’t win against Obama in this economy, with his scandals, with his own base staying by the millions, then son…you just can’t win!

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:22 PM


You idiot are saying that you will vote for a screamer who is stupid and assured to lose versus what you call a RINO a totally abused and meaningless word used by the absolutists and purists… By doing so you are giving victory to the 100% socialist candidate and hence you are a slave for the socialists….

So you’re saying that by not voting for the GOP socialist advanced by party elites in favour of your hypothetical “screecher” I am in effect voting for the Democrat, as opposed to the Republican, socialist.

But I would prefer that our socialists call themselves Democrats if the only choice the party offers me is between 2 socialists.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:22 PM

This is a fine strategy if the GOP is only concerned about winning? Really, Mister Rasmussen? Then how come the GOP hasn’t been winning for the last six years? Where did we go wrong?

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Says the RINO.

Hilarious!

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Says the idiot who uses RINO all the times… As I said before to others on this thread the socialists are your lords and masters… You and your children are their slaves… You rent and scream against them on the internet but at the end you are willing to give them full power…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

To win the GOP must return to Reaganism. Country clubism is a very minority position.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Or McCain or Romney or Christie, etc. stupid statements were not limited to Conservative candidates. Or Republicans for that matter — remember “You didn’t build that”? But when the press is on your side, your stupid utterances are ignored or “clarified” while the press ignores clarifications from the conservative side.

The premise of the article has a number of flaws, selective memory being one of them. It points out Aiken and Murdoch while ignoring Cruze on the winning side and Scott Brown on the losing side.

AZfederalist on January 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Although I agree that the media helps the Liberals, I do find one of your comparisons somewhat inaccurate. Obama’s “You didn’t build that” was to us a stupid statement, but his base/supporters agreed with it. Aiken and others said stupid things that even most of their supporters didn’t agree with, and that was the problem.
As for McCain and Romney, etc. our problem isn’t the occasional slight gaffe. It’s not finding the vetted and qualified Conservative candidate. Maybe there isn’t one?

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Aiken lost by 10 points – he could have won if the RNSC had supported his campaign – but immediately after he made his remarks – every single GOP establishment type jumped on him and killed his chances.

Snottie Brown lost to a fake Indian by an equal amount and he GOT LOTS of money and support from the GOP establishment.

So don’t tell me that Aiken was all that bad of a candidate. Yeah – he screwed up but it could have been turned around had the GOP Ayatollahs not crossed the isle and joined the LSM in demonizing Aiken.

HondaV65 on January 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Of every criticism I’ve heard of the establishment boogeyman this has to be the dumbest.

Do you have any proof for anything you say there or have you just decided in your head that it’s true because it fits your narrative so that meets the burden of proof?

Rush tossed Aiken overboard too. Is he an establishment hack?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM

That is because you are a stupid and a slave of the socialists…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Wow. So all this time I’ve been a slave?

And stupid too?

I want reperations!….Give me something for free!

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM

…Ouch!

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM

You rent and scream against them on the internet but at the end you are willing to give them full power…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

As if you did anything more, WHINO.

MelonCollie on January 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Or is that just crazy talk?

Yep, crazy talk.

Rasmussen is just now noticing what Conservatives in the Republican Party have known for years. Here in Colorado I have seen the Institutional Republicans deliberately throw a Senate seat twice and governor’s seat once to keep the Conservative who won the convention/primary out. In the governor’s seat, the Republican Party funded the Constitution Party after inserting a Republican ringer as their candidate to split the vote and deliberately give it to the Democrats rather than have the duly nominated Republican TEA Party candidate win.

Two generations of my family left the Republican Party January 2 after Speaker Boehner functionally became the Democrat Speaker of the House pro-tem; depending on Democrat votes in the House they technically hold to surrender to Obama.

In normal times, the route to change the Republican Party would be to take back the Party Apparat. These are not normal times. The Institutional Republicans are like the Democrat media; the rules only apply when they want them too. The game has been rigged against any insurgents, open primaries allow the Democrats to choose Republican candidates, and finally the national voting and vote counting process have been corrupted by the Democrats beyond the point where electoral victory is possible.

The deliberate decision by the Institutional Republican leadership NOT to fight vote fraud anywhere in the country [they signed a Federal Court consent decree agreeing not to take any such action, and it is still in force, full text here: http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rnc-v-dnc.pdf ] means that the Democrats have a free hand to cheat protected by the Federal Courts.

It is too late for electoral means to save the country if the Institutional Republicans are involved. They have no interest in doing so if it changes their status as part of the Nomenklatura. A separate, Conservative, party under whatever name is not bound by court decree to cover for Democrat vote fraud, and even if they are not going to win the rigged elections, they can act as a rallying point for real opposition to the “Ruling Class” in whatever happens to our poor country in the interesting times we are in.

The Institutional Republicans are about to have their 1856 Whig Party moment. What remains will only exist at the sufferance of the Democrats as a tame opposition and scapegoat.

We need a Second Party, now.

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

To win the GOP must return to Reaganism. Country clubism is a very minority position.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Good luck with that.

You and your children are their slaves… You rent and scream against them on the internet but at the end you are willing to give them full power…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I have an idea. Why don’t we call each other slaves and RINOs? That will solve all our problems right-quick!

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

If you can’t win against Obama in this economy, with his scandals, with his own base staying by the millions, then son…you just can’t win!

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:22 PM

If not for the war on women crap that was made much worse by Aiken and Murdock and brought abortionists in huge numbers to vote for Obama then Romney would have won in particular in the swing states…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM


If you can’t win against Obama in this economy, with his scandals, with his own base staying by the millions, then son…you just can’t win!

Even if I accept your claim, which I don’t, I would have preferred to lose supporting a conservative candidate as opposed to a Willard Romney whose primary task as he saw it was to suppress his party’s own base in favour of all those independents who were supposed to carry him to victory as if he weren’t a Republican at all or something.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Says the idiot who uses RINO all the times… As I said before to others on this thread

the socialists are your lords and masters… You and your children are their slaves… You rent and scream against them on the internet but at the end you are willing to give them full power…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Well thought out comeback RINO…See you at the next Establisment loss.

(which is inevitable by the way if GOPe’s like yourself don’t wake up).

YOUR party LOSES with alraming regularity. MY party delivered unprecedented Midterm WINS in 2010.

I’ll stick with MY party…you just keep losing.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Rush tossed Aiken overboard too. Is he an establishment hack?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:26 PM

YES! He’s probably being paid off by the establishment.

/Honduhhh.

When even the most notorious host on shout radio refuses to associate with you, it’s a pretty definite sign that you’re irredeemably stupid, despicable, or both.

MelonCollie on January 13, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Yes, yes, hallelujah and amen!

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Whigs on fire.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM

If not for the war on women crap that was made much worse by Aiken and Murdock and brought abortionists in huge numbers to vote for Obama then Romney would have won in particular in the swing states…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Aiken and Murdock? If you ask most people they would have no idea who they are.

BS.

It was Romney’s to lose and he lost it.

You are a liberal who doesn’t like to face the fact that your policies are rejected by the base, and the left wants full out socialism.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I am not aware of any other party winning in 2010 beside the Republican party… You are an idiot to think otherwise…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

These people are loony. The establishment GOP would never have retaken the House and would still be wandering in the wilderness. All we really need is smart primary rules: closed primaries to prevent Dem crossover mischief and a runoff rule, so that a plurality candidate doesn’t make it through.

alwaysfiredup on January 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM


It was Romney’s to lose and he lost it.

Lost it? Willard Romney and his lickspittle “team” of cringing butt-kissers dug a massive slit-trench latrine across the entire south-east of the U.S. and sh** all over it. Then they buried it.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

ajacksonian on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Well done!

AH_C on January 13, 2013 at 2:36 PM

These people are loony. The establishment GOP would never have retaken the House and would still be wandering in the wilderness. All we really need is smart primary rules: closed primaries to prevent Dem crossover mischief and a runoff rule, so that a plurality candidate doesn’t make it through.

alwaysfiredup on January 13, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Closed primaries and runoffs sound like a good idea to me. The only hitch as near as I can tell is that you’d need state-level GOP apparatchiks to sign off on that, which would be mighty mighty tricky up in the northeast where the bluebloods are most heavily concentrated. Here in flyover country, closed primaries tend to be more the rule.

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:36 PM

You are a liberal who doesn’t like to face the fact that your policies are rejected by the base, and the left wants full out socialism.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

oh, he’s no liberal….he’s just a mess.

(A Johnny Boner clone if you will – he doesn’t even comprehend how ridiculous he sounds)

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Aiken and Murdock? If you ask most people they would have no idea who they are.

BS.

It was Romney’s to lose and he lost it.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Exactly. They were both almost-unknowns before they made idiots of themselves in front of the world, and aside from people who’re still sore at them, they’re back to being unknown. Blaming a couple nobodies with big stupid mouths for Romney’s loss is beyond pathetic.

MelonCollie on January 13, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Blaming a couple nobodies with big stupid mouths for Romney’s loss is beyond pathetic.

MelonCollie on January 13, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I blame only one big stupid mouth for Romney’s loss:

Romney

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Lost it? Willard Romney and his lickspittle “team” of cringing butt-kissers dug a massive slit-trench latrine across the entire south-east of the U.S. and sh** all over it. Then they buried it.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM

And I think they are OK with losing as long as the DC applecart isn’t upset. They still get to chow down at the trough so they don’t actually lose that much when all is said and done.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

I am not aware of any other party winning in 2010 beside the Republican party… You are an idiot to think otherwise…

mnjg on January 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM

so true conservative values and grass-roots victories are fine with you, as long as the candidate wins?

You’re willing to ride the back of the tea-party when it suits you?

Why am I not surprised little RINO?

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Closed primaries and runoffs sound like a good idea to me. The only hitch as near as I can tell is that you’d need state-level GOP apparatchiks to sign off on that, which would be mighty mighty tricky up in the northeast where the bluebloods are most heavily concentrated. Here in flyover country, closed primaries tend to be more the rule.

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Just to play devil’s advocate a bit…

Runoffs are going to get very time-consuming and expensive. Do that and you’re forcing candidates to spend more time and money in fewer states and potential exhaust their resources for in a long primary battle. You’re stacking the deck in favor of the monied candidates if you do that.

The first state this cycle to have a closed primary was Florida and Romney won it.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

We need a Second Party, now.

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

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/campaignselections/tp/AlternativesToTheGOP.htm

Plenty to choose from.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM

oh, he’s no liberal….he’s just a mess.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I would bet he’s socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Some of the GOP base stinks too. When attendees to Republican debates clap as a questioner says Texas has executed 234 inmates, when they boo an Iraq vet for asking a question about gay soldiers serving in the military, when they laugh and cheer at letting the uninsured die, then the base has its own problems to deal with.

Were their number exaggerated by the media? Yes. Were their reactions overblown? Yes, sure. Were their underlying sentiments — that capital punishment works as a deterrent, that letting gays serve might harm unit cohesion, that people in a free society should face the consequences of their decisions — all completely legitimate political views? Of course.

But freedom of speech for a white man does not include yelling “Nigga!” in the Apollo Theater.

bobs1196 on January 13, 2013 at 2:41 PM

The first state this cycle to have a closed primary was Florida and Romney won it.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

If it wouldn’t make much of a difference, we’d be no worse off than we are now. I look at the state of the GOP today and my first thought is along the lines of let it burn. It doesn’t need improving. It needs to go away.

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM

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.

Yes. No Establishment Republican loses. Wait they also lose in greater numbers all across the Nation.

This has nothing to do with electability. This has only to do with ideology. The Establishment attempting to force only people with their ideology to be able to run. The base detest the Establishment more and more each day.

There will be no Republican Party if the Establishment keeps up trying to force it’s ideology down our throats and keeps working against the bases candidates then blaming them when they lose even though they most likely lost because of Establishment figures working against them. It has become a one way street. The Establishment wants the base to support it’s candidates but will in no way support the bases candidates. That tears a party apart and the Establishment is 100% to blame.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM

And…? Why aren’t Conservatives the Establishment?
Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Because too many in the Establishment are not conservative, but want to keep their version of pork and crony capitalism going.

Wethal on January 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

To win the GOP must return to Reaganism. Country clubism is a very minority position.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Good luck with that.
gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:27 PM

We had very good luck with it in 2010. The wave that usered in the class of 2010 was very wide and very deep. It took the GOPe 2 years to recover and decrease the power of the Tea party which was just a collection of Reaganites. the only thing missing was a leader in a position of power to enact the change the people voted for in 2010. That was the mistake of the TEA party and “we don’t need a leader” crap that the GOPe was spourting as the TEA party formed. Of course we needed a leader to rally behind and push for the reforms we voted for. The GOPe understood that and went above and beyond to tear down and destroy any person that might have rallied the TEA party in 2012. Returning to Reaganism is easy because more than 60% of the people in the US agree with it. We just need a leader to push it on the national stage.

Cruz, Palin, Rand Paul, maybe even Demint make be able to do it. Watch the long knives come out for Cruz in the coming months and Rand Paul if he is serious about running in 2016. Rubio and opther GOPe will be propped up.

Returning to Reaganism is the easy route to winning and governing. Trying to push Bushism/rockefeller republicianism down the craws of Americans after they have rejected it 3 times now is the hard unwinnable position that the GOPe seem to want to take. It will not work and the GOp will become a permenent minority party for the next 50 years just like they were after FDR.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:45 PM


I am not aware of any other party winning in 2010 beside the Republican party… You are an idiot to think otherwise…

Lots of Republicans won to be sure. But there are Republicans and then there are Republicans. The Republicans who won in 2010 now largely oppose the establishment Republicans who because of their long tenure hold top positions in house leadership, house committees, or party operations posts.

Ours is a house divided between old and new. Even the ’94 so-called ‘Republican Revolution’ cohort seem naive and acquiescing by the more urgent standards of our time. The 90s were a relative boom-time; our own era is a time of national-financial peril. The political right in our era is developing with every election cycle in its consciousness of itself and its analysis of current national trends, where the tenured elites of both national parties are becoming hardened in their reactionary stance on just about everything. How it plays out is anyone’s guess. But I have no intention of changing sides to join the establishment-statists of either party.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM

The first state this cycle to have a closed primary was Florida and Romney won it.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Florida voted for Obama so it shouldn’t be choosing the Republican candidate any more than Romney home state of The People’s Republic Of Massachusetts should.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM

We had very good luck with it in 2010.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:45 PM

We did. No argument here. But good luck with trying to get the GOP to return to it. DC is a poison pit that affects everyone that ends up there (e.g. Rubio, West).

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Exactly. They were both almost-unknowns before they made idiots of themselves in front of the world, and aside from people who’re still sore at them, they’re back to being unknown. Blaming a couple nobodies with big stupid mouths for Romney’s loss is beyond pathetic.

MelonCollie on January 13, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Obama’s victory follows a historical trend and that made it fairly predictable.

The American people vote from improving economies. A lot of people looked at the October unemployment rate of 7.9% in a vacuum, said it was too high and so Obama should be toast. Going back in history a bit we see Reagan’s 49 state landslide happened with an unemployment rate of 7.2% (down a whole 0.3% from 7.5% the month he was elected) but things were still better than they were in 1982 and the economy was growing like mad. FDR was re-elected in 1936 in a lousy overall economy but people still perceived improvement. The economy is growing slowly now on account of the president being a socialist looney toon with destructive policies but in spite of his best efforts there are still small measurable improvements, and just enough of them to drag him across the finish line.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:48 PM


I blame only one big stupid mouth for Romney’s loss:

Romney’s

ROTFL.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:48 PM

The first state this cycle to have a closed primary was Florida and Romney won it.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM

If it wouldn’t make much of a difference, we’d be no worse off than we are now. I look at the state of the GOP today and my first thought is along the lines of let it burn. It doesn’t need improving. It needs to go away.

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Besides there was no ABR right then. Newt made the moronic suggestion of a Moon Base being a 51′st State while claiming he wanted to cut Government Spending using the guise of getting private industry to do this through Government Rewards. The base understood this was a brand new government spending program with no real purpose and very little chance of helping America. Thus they punished Newt and ended his ABR time.

Yes close primaries. We should be able to choose our candidates not allow Democrats to come in and choose them for us.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Because too many in the Establishment are not conservative, but want to keep their version of pork and crony capitalism going.

Wethal on January 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM

That’s not an answer. So why are “too many in the Establishment not Conservative?” How did we end up with this? After all, we elected them.
We have to quit blaming the Establishment that we put there, and make ourselves the Establishment. There is nothing wrong with being the Establishment as long as it matches your ideals. Actually that would be a good thing, right?

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Wow, Jazz.

LMAO

Just when ya think it can’t get any worse… *p0w*

all doubt’s removed.

SD Tom on January 13, 2013 at 2:49 PM

The GOP leadership is a joke. If left up to them, we would have Charlie Crist instead of Marco Rubio and David Dewhurst instead of Ted Cruz.

Lets talk about there “electability” for a second.

How did Mitt Romney, Linda McMahon, Scott Brown, Tommy Thompson, and Linda Lingle,do? Not to mention the great moderate hopes Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman in 2010, a big GOP year.

Yes, we have lost a couple of seats that were winnable if we were content with unprincipled hacks, but that is what is supposed to make the GOP different from the Democrats.

What am i saying….the GOP leadership doesnt want to be any different from the Democrats except for purposes of the big scam on the American people called politics.

The GOP is quite close to becoming the Whigs, and the leadership doesnt have a clue.

Thats why some of us have already abandoned the GOP. Ill back individual candidates very carefully, without a care about “wasting” my vote if its for a third party. Ill vote for a Pat Toomey for sure, but never again a Mitt Romney.

Ignore us at your own risk GOP.

alecj on January 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Or is that just crazy talk?

Not crazy talk, and some very fine writing.

Cleombrotus on January 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM

As I see it, the issue is a little more nuanced, to use that term, than may are willing to admit. Those who are most politically engaged are the most activist but also the most ideological. They are not always representative of the broader, more popular movement. I believe this to be that case in the GOP. The purist, activist collective is out of step and out of touch with the bulk of the electorate, event the conservative electorate.

It is isn’t simply a matter of RINO’s or squishes or centrists or moderates versus the pure. It is a matter of priorities. The ability to distinguish what is less important and can be negotiated versus what is the core and necessary has been lost among the activists. Every issue is critical and no flexibility can be tolerated. This is unhealthy and a recipe for perpetual electoral wilderness.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Florida voted for Obama so it shouldn’t be choosing the Republican candidate any more than Romney home state of The People’s Republic Of Massachusetts should.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM

You’re going to disenfranchise millions of Republicans because they live surrounded by a bunch of idiots who (this time) made up a narrow electoral majority of a state? Okay…..

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I blame only one big stupid mouth for Romney’s loss:
Romney’s

ROTFL.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Laugh some more.

I do not believe for a second that Romney ever wanted to win. His own son said he did NOT want to be President.

Look at the first debate he was badly behind so he came out and acted Conservative and went way up in the polls. So he repeated this in the other two debates and won. NO. He agreed more with Obama in the next two debated and refused to attack Obama in either. He threw the election to Obama. Just like a rigged fight.

Romney tried to make it look good and stay close but he made sure he lost.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Every primary could be closed and it wouldn’t change a thing if every real conservative out there decides they have more important things to do than save the country from the grips of socialism.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM

If anything, those in FL should be given a greater voice since it is their votes that are needed to tip the scales!

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

We did. No argument here. But good luck with trying to get the GOP to return to it. DC is a poison pit that affects everyone that ends up there (e.g. Rubio, West).

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM

True which is why the TEa party must focus on electing leaders in 2014 not a bunch of footsolider like in 2010. Footsoldiers are nice and its good to have majorities but until you get leadership poistions it doesn’t matter. The NEWt house quickly turned into the bush house. The Reagan GOP quickly morphed into the Bush GOP. Without a strong leader who talks the talk and walks the walk the GOPe will never change. and conservatives and the tea party are leaderless atm.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM

You’re going to disenfranchise millions of Republicans because they live surrounded by a bunch of idiots who (this time) made up a narrow electoral majority of a state? Okay…..

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Their political sensibilities are informed by a population that chooses socialism. I would rather a state that actual believes in something other than the ever growing nanny state. They aren’t any more disenfranchised than the other states who currently go last.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM


It is isn’t simply a matter of RINO’s or squishes or centrists or moderates versus the pure. It is a matter of priorities. The ability to distinguish what is less important and can be negotiated versus what is the core and necessary has been lost among the activists. Every issue is critical and no flexibility can be tolerated. This is unhealthy and a recipe for perpetual electoral wilderness.

So what you’re saying is that you would like to argue with those who want purity, inflexibility, which is a straw-man position since no one has advanced such a ridiculous position. The problem for conservatives is that the issues we prioritize are too frequently dismissed or negotiated away to meaninglessness by a hostile party establishment, so the question at issue is precisely the priorities themselves. We would prefer candidates who prioritize our issues–wow, WHAT a concept!

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM


I do not believe for a second that Romney ever wanted to win.

There is a lot of evidence to support your position I must concede.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Romney tried to make it look good and stay close but he made sure he lost.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

his actions since the elections confirm your POV. Someone that wanted to win would have immediately sought to keep in the lime light and push the party into thier direction. Instead Mitt went into hiding never to be heard from again. Even McCain after he lost didn’t disappear he stilled try to direct the party to his way of thinking. Mitt simply went AWOL. He never wanted to win and simply wanted to keep the marxist in chief as the POTUS.

Mitt was the GOPe’ answer to make sure a 2010 tea party wave didn’t happen in 2012 and sweep all their butts out of power.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:58 PM

We had very good luck with it in 2010.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:45 PM

We did. No argument here. But good luck with trying to get the GOP to return to it. DC is a poison pit that affects everyone that ends up there (e.g. Rubio, West).

gryphon202 on January 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM

And the GOP never will, gryph….2010 was a “bottom-up” phenomenon…it was a fed-up-grassroots victory.

It can Definitely happen again…..

we can make it happen in 2012.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:59 PM

If anything, those in FL should be given a greater voice since it is their votes that are needed to tip the scales!

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Well then I guess Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and Connecticut should be choosing the Republican candidate. /s

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM

The problem for conservatives is that the issues we prioritize are too frequently dismissed or negotiated away to meaninglessness by a hostile party establishment, so the question at issue is precisely the priorities themselves. We would prefer candidates who prioritize our issues–wow, WHAT a concept!

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM

The reason that they are negotiated away is because the party REFUSES to prioritize. This is true of both the activists and the establishment. To the the DC insiders, everything is negotiable. To the noisy activists nothing is. Well, when everything is equally critical, nothing is critical.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Their political sensibilities are informed by a population that chooses socialism. I would rather a state that actual believes in something other than the ever growing nanny state. They aren’t any more disenfranchised than the other states who currently go last.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM

So if 250,000 African-Americans in South Carolina who do not vote now suddenly start voting and the state shifts from red to blue then the Republicans in that state would have been unqualified to choose Gingrich in the primary?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM

True which is why the TEa party must focus on electing leaders in 2014 not a bunch of footsolider like in 2010. Footsoldiers are nice and its good to have majorities but until you get leadership poistions it doesn’t matter.
unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM

This! And the candidates have to have these leadership sbilities. We’ve been picking candidates based solely on the fact they may be Conservative. Well, I know plenty of Conservatives who are very nice people but who would make lousy leaders. We need to better vet and scrutinize and demand more from our candidates. There have to be some Conservatives with leadership qualities who will step up, we just need to find them.

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM

we can make it happen in 2012.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 2:59 PM

2014

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Every primary could be closed and it wouldn’t change a thing if every real conservative out there decides they have more important things to do than save the country from the grips of socialism.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Did you forget this story is about how the Establishment is trying to rig the Primaries so no Conservative can ever win any Primary?

One way to do that is to open the Primary.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:02 PM

So if 250,000 African-Americans in South Carolina who do not vote now suddenly start voting and the state shifts from red to blue then the Republicans in that state would have been unqualified to choose Gingrich in the primary?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM

If a state votes for the Democrats it should go to the back of the line and lose its position to a state that does support conservatism. Letting those who don’t like you or your policies choose who your leader is… is simply insane.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Did you forget this story is about how the Establishment is trying to rig the Primaries so no Conservative can ever win any Primary?

One way to do that is to open the Primary.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:02 PM

The primaries weren’t rigged though.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

True which is why the TEa party must focus on electing leaders in 2014 not a bunch of footsolider like in 2010. Footsoldiers are nice and its good to have majorities but until you get leadership poistions it doesn’t matter.
unseen on January 13, 2013 at 2:54 PM

This! And the candidates have to have these leadership sbilities. We’ve been picking candidates based solely on the fact they may be Conservative. Well, I know plenty of Conservatives who are very nice people but who would make lousy leaders. We need to better vet and scrutinize and demand more from our candidates. There have to be some Conservatives with leadership qualities who will step up, we just need to find them.

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Excuse me they did elect leaders in 2010.

I mean really you think the 2010 leaders are going to be leaders in 2012. They only way you would think that is if your real aim was to destroy the Tea Party. It takes time to become a leader so to judge them now is just a pure attack. Especially as several are leading already.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

The reason that they are negotiated away is because the party REFUSES to prioritize. This is true of both the activists and the establishment. To the the DC insiders, everything is negotiable. To the noisy activists nothing is. Well, when everything is equally critical, nothing is critical.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Excellent analysis.

thebrokenrattle on January 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM

The Tea Party started out with great goals. To limit government with the realization that today’s debt will be tomorrow’s taxes. It’s a message that is vital, but also a hard sell to a scared populace who is ever more reliant on public assistance at a time when government policy has crushed the private economy.

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.

If they can get back to their core message of exchanging centralized planning for free market capitalism, limited government for liberty there may still be hope for them. That is the message that the GOP needs to focus on to the exclusion of most of the other issues that are simply tools for demagogues to exploit.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

there is a serious study needed.

1. Why did MO wind up with Aiken and UT wind up with Lee? Are there no Mike Lees in MO? No Cruzes? How about MD? Castle might have been the ONLY R that could have one…i think maybe that’s true

So each state is different. MO failed terribly. Why?

2. Rs are not totally lost…yet. 30 guvs are R.

What we have is a huge paradox….and within paradoxes lie the truth, per niels bohr…but the future is dim at the national level. Reps might just have too much deadwood at the top

r keller on January 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

One last note on the “establishment”

We lost the Presidency in 2012 the moment Romney was nominated. The issue of Obamacare was no doubt a winner, and could have motivated people to vote if used and explained correctly.

That issue was null and void because Romney was “next in line” or it was “his turn” or whatever you call the stupid GOP tradition of picking the next moderate available.

The Obama team must have been jumping up and down when they realized Obamacare was off the table. They wouldnt have had a chance had the health care nightmare we are about to experience became the central focus of the election.

Instead, the campaign was trivialized, and made about a phony “war on women” and Romney’s wealth.

Ill always believe 2012 was supposed to be about Obamacare and the establishment gave the election away to get their candidate.

Now we have Obama, and Obamacare…..but its the Tea Party types that are the problem.

Just my opinion.

alecj on January 13, 2013 at 3:09 PM

To the noisy activists nothing is. Well, when everything is equally critical, nothing is critical.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Tell me what the GOPe believes in name me one issue, concern, or principle that they will not give up?

What is a political party but a loose collection of people that believe in the same politcal ideology and wish to advance that ideology through the use of politcal power. the GOPe now stand for nothing. therefore they are no longer a polictal party but an elite collection of people that wish for nothing but to cement their power and influence not advance a politcal ideology. In other words the GOPe have become no better then a Chavez or Castro and if left to their own devicies would quickly expand their activites to silence opposition to their rule like all dictators do.

After all what is this but an attempt to silence opposition?

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.

So, according to Politico, the Washington team is gearing up a new effort to protect incumbents and limit the ability of Republican voters to successfully challenge establishment candidates.

sure they haven’t got to the point of locking us up yet or shooting us but they have started down the slope that all dictators start at. Silence the oppistion. make it impossible for the opposition to challenge their rule. the next step when this doesn’t work is to use the force of law to keep their power and when that doesn’t work its the use of deadly force.

It is the same old same old that we have seen in history countless times.

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:11 PM

…Opinions!

ajacksonian on January 13, 2013 at 2:07 PM

AZfederalist

unseen

Subotai Bahadur

alecj

MJBrutus

…there’s some GOOD S(c)hit here!

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Tell me what the GOPe believes in name me one issue, concern, or principle that they will not give up?

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Try to keep up:

The reason that they are negotiated away is because the party REFUSES to prioritize. This is true of both the activists and the establishment. To the the DC insiders, everything is negotiable. To the noisy activists nothing is. Well, when everything is equally critical, nothing is critical.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:13 PM

If a state votes for the Democrats it should go to the back of the line and lose its position to a state that does support conservatism. Letting those who don’t like you or your policies choose who your leader is… is simply insane.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:03 PM

So your plan involves writing off the opinions of all the Republicans in the swing states we need to carry if we’re ever going to win another national election? That sounds like winner!

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 3:05 PM

name one tea party person that has a leadership position in DC and can enact the change that was voted for?

I’ll wait…..

unseen on January 13, 2013 at 3:14 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.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I missed these events. Could you point me to when/where this happened? I wouldn’t want to remain ill informed.

ElectricPhase on January 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM

So your plan involves writing off the opinions of all the Republicans in the swing states we need to carry if we’re ever going to win another national election? That sounds like winner!

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Mitt Romney and John McCain were both attempts to pander to the middle as you are advocating and they both failed. Romney tried it in Florida and they voted for Obama. He tried it in Pennsylvania and it didn’t work there either. They, like most people despise boot-lickers and chose Obama rather than a wannabe.

It doesn’t work.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 3:18 PM

ElectricPhase on January 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Boy, you ain’t kiddin’

On Tuesday, Tea Party-backed candidates lost to Democrats in Indiana, Missouri, and Wisconsin, among other states.

In Florida, Republican Representative Allen West, a Tea Party hero who made waves for calling Democratic House colleagues closeted Communists, lost to Patrick Murphy, a 29-year-old political newcomer. (West has not conceded the race and is seeking a recount.) In Minnesota, former presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann barely retained her House seat. In Illinois, Democrat Tammy Duckworth, a decorated Iraq War veteran who headed President Barack Obama’s U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, beat Republican incumbent Joe Walsh for a House seat. In a closely-watched U.S. Senate race in Indiana, Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly defeated State Treasurer Richard Mourdock; the Republican had publicly scoffed at the idea of compromise in Washington and his campaign stumbled when he said that conception from rape is “something that God intended.” Missouri Republican Todd Akin also lost a Senate bid over his controversial remarks on “legitimate rape.”

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:21 PM

One of the biggest obstacles to reforming the GOP and thus saving America is the dominance of GOP-establishment commentators at Fox News and the rest of the DC/NY GOP media. It’s the failed policies of the neocons that are dragging the party down yet they remain unrepentant, unreformed and more determined than ever to shut out or destroy conservative opposition.

FloatingRock on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

If they can get back to their core message of exchanging centralized planning for free market capitalism, limited government for liberty there may still be hope for them. That is the message that the GOP needs to focus on to the exclusion of most of the other issues that are simply tools for demagogues to exploit.

MJBrutus on January 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Exactly. There is no reason Conservatives can’t be the “Establishment,” be in charge so to speak. But we need to be organized and choose candidates who are qualified and leaders.
Unfortunately many people/voters hear the word Conservative and jump on a bandwagon without finding out the true character and abilities of the person. So we end up disorganized with some candidates that should never have been selected. I still believe there are people out there who would be great Conservative leaders, we just have to find them. And that probably isn’t something that we can do in a few months. Do people have the willingness to take the time and effort to do it? I hope so.

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6