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 3 4 5 6

You state how it was rigged and thank you for that. The early winner take alls were eliminated because it was known Romney would lose most of the early elections.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Here you go with the supposition again. Who knew Romney would lose most of the early elections? How did they know that? How did they force state parties to do what they did in setting dates they set?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Steveangell on January 13, 2013

…I think!…You may, be mentally retarded!
(do they still use that term nowadays?)

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM

And he said a number of times he was going to repeal it.

*shrug*

We knew Obama wasn`t going to and the last chance was Romney. It depends if you are a gambler.

But now we know for certain.

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Man your arrogant condensation never ends.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 5:53 PM

I’m sorry but you’ve said that twice. What exactly does it mean?

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 6:03 PM

It means, anyone who doesn’t agree with him is arrogant and condescending.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

People say that the majority of Republicans didn’t want Romney, but he got nominated anyway.

Well, maybe, but did the majority of Republicans want Gingrich or Santorum or Paul? If there was a candidate who ran in the primaries that the majority of Republican voters had wanted to be the nominee, that candidate would most likely have won.

The nomination race wasn’t a race between “Romney” and “Somebody Other Than Romney.” It was a race among Romney and his specific individual opponents.

J.S.K. on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

mentally retarded!
(do they still use that term nowadays?)

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I don’t think so…someone went nuts on me on another website….can’t remember the PC term though.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM

It means, anyone who doesn’t agree with him is arrogant and condescending.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

lol

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Too bad for all the suffering. Pass the salt.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM

It means, anyone who doesn’t agree with him is arrogant and condescending.

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Oh, condescension. I thought maybe he was talking about water vapor or condensing something. My bad…

Deanna on January 13, 2013 at 6:08 PM

The nomination race wasn’t a race between “Romney” and “Somebody Other Than Romney.” It was a race among Romney and his specific individual opponents.

J.S.K. on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Oh don’t be silly… Everybody knows that Romney signed a blood pack with the devil (Because Romney is after all even more evil than Obama) and Lucifer the prince of Darkness forced everyone to do evil things so that Romney was able to gain the plurality of Republican votes.

/S

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Here you go with the supposition again. Who knew Romney would lose most of the early elections? How did they know that? How did they force state parties to do what they did in setting dates they set?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Yes the Any One But Mitt polls that existed ever since Romney supported Obama Care never happened.

2010 and the massive Tea Party win never happened. Mitt was opposed to the Tea Party.

But in your arrogance and condensation you ignore every single fact and build your entire argument out of thin air with irrelevant “facts” that are only facts in your arrogant mind.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM

mentally retarded!
(do they still use that term nowadays?)

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I don’t think so…someone went nuts on me on another website….can’t remember the PC term though.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Developmentally disabled.

urban elitist on January 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM

can’t remember the PC term though.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM

That would be Obama voter wouldn’t it… o_O

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM

And he said a number of times he was going to repeal it.

*shrug*

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I guess a lot of other people shrugged as well given the thin soup being offered.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Because she would have lost for the same reason those you chose for your arrogant post lost. The GOPe would have been enemy number one.

The GOPe destroyed all you talk about. Interesting. I guess when tons of GOPe candidates lose you just forget they ever existed. I mean I guess in your warped mind we still control the House and Senate because GOPe candidates always win.

Must be nice in your alternate reality.

Come back to earth. The GOPe loses and loses and loses. That is the only game they know how to lose. The very few times the Conservative message has been allowed we have always won. Five Presidential wins since Nixon all with a Conservative message. Six Presidential losses all with a GOPe message. We won the House twice with a Conservative message then lost it with a GOPe message. We won the Senate with a Conservative message then lost it with a GOPe message.

You can NOT name a single election cycle the GOPe message won since Nixon. That worked out so well too didn’t it.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Republican candidates lose all the time. When have I said anything different?

Who disallows a conservative message? Why does whoever it is allow it sometimes but not others? Rand Paul was destroyed? Someone better tell him before he runs for president in 2016! Mourdock destroyed himself and O’Donnell was never really in it to start with. I could have added Mike Lee, Cruz or a couple others to that list as well. The voters have the ultimate say and so if Palin chickened out then that’s all on her.

Let’s have a little thought experiment. Palin runs for president this last cycle. This evil establishment thingie decides to destroy her. What could they have said that would have made the base turn on her?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Oh don’t be silly… Everybody knows that Romney signed a blood pack with the devil (Because Romney is after all even more evil than Obama) and Lucifer the prince of Darkness forced everyone to do evil things so that Romney was able to gain the plurality of Republican votes.

/S

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 6:08 PM

WOW you told the truth for once \S

In my book supporting every DNC idea in existence then arrogantly running as the GOP nominee is as evil as it gets.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Developmentally disabled.

urban elitist on January 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM

….knew YOU’D be there for us!

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Developmentally disabled.

urban elitist on January 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM

TY…that’s it.

lol…What’s up UE..?

what’s obama been givin’ ya my friend?

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:13 PM

And he said a number of times he was going to repeal it.

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Only the “bad parts.” He was going to keep the “good parts.”

Did you ever figure out the “good parts?” I know I didn’t.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Man your arrogant condensation never ends.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Might I, as well, offer you, our pet retard, a bit of superior ball sweat?

M240H on January 13, 2013 at 6:14 PM

RINO hunting!! The best fun

rik on January 13, 2013 at 6:15 PM

The state parties decide when their primaries are, not the national party. And if there was really a conspiracy to get Mormon-heavy states to vote early then why in heaven’s name would they make Utah the very last state to vote? Florida had the same spot in 2012 it had in 2008 as well. Or is the pro-Romney conspiracy so clever that they planned this out over four years in advance?

The reason they moved Utah to last was symbolic and more proof that the fix was in.

If you think the national party doesn’t control most of these states moves, you don’t have a clue.

And Florida went 9th in 2008 and 4th in 2012. You clearly don’t know what you are talking about……..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

KMav on January 13, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Might I, as well, offer you, our pet retard, a bit of superior ball sweat?

M240H on January 13, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Developmentally disabled.

Keep up for cryin’ out loud!

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:17 PM

If the Republican Party wants to emulate the cultural mores of
the Democratic Party in order to get votes, and alienate/sublimate their Conservative Base, which there is no denying that they have, then we do not really have a two-party system anymore.

kingsjester on January 13, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Who disallows a conservative message? Why does whoever it is allow it sometimes but not others? Rand Paul was destroyed? Someone better tell him before he runs for president in 2016! Mourdock destroyed himself and O’Donnell was never really in it to start with. I could have added Mike Lee, Cruz or a couple others to that list as well. The voters have the ultimate say and so if Palin chickened out then that’s all on her.

Let’s have a little thought experiment. Palin runs for president this last cycle. This evil establishment thingie decides to destroy her. What could they have said that would have made the base turn on her?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:11 PM

The GOP won 2010 BIG TIME with a Conservative Message.

2012 the GOPe ran with the least Conservative Message since Nixon at least.

So the leaders of the GOP are either insane or so arrogant they think they can turn a Conservative win into a GOPe win. Well they could not.

Fact is there was no Conservative Message in 2012. The GOP leadership made sure of that.

Of course the GOP leadership has a huge say in how the States set primary dates after all they are supposedly on the same team. Is a State GOP party really going to buck the National Party that much. No.

But that is right you are totally arrogant you know not common sense.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:18 PM

And he said a number of times he was going to repeal it.

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Only the “bad parts.” He was going to keep the “good parts.”

Did you ever figure out the “good parts?” I know I didn’t.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Romneycare. He was very proud of Romneycare, and that’s the only thing he stayed firm on.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Yes the Any One But Mitt polls that existed ever since Romney supported Obama Care never happened.

2010 and the massive Tea Party win never happened. Mitt was opposed to the Tea Party.

But in your arrogance and condensation you ignore every single fact and build your entire argument out of thin air with irrelevant “facts” that are only facts in your arrogant mind.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Sure there were a lot of people who wanted anyone but Mitt, but Mitt still got a plurality of support. The ABRs certainly weren’t a majority or Mitt never would have hit 50% in the polls while there was still opposition.

The massive GOP win in 2010 happened but that didn’t really have much to do with Mitt. The economy was in the tank, the Democrats were down in the dumps after Odumbo turned out to be more man than messiah and the GOP won big against a low Democrat voter turnout. What does Mitt have to do with any of that?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Only the “bad parts.” He was going to keep the “good parts.”

Did you ever figure out the “good parts?” I know I didn’t.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Less than what would have stuck with Obama, so it depends on whether that`s good enough. It apparently wasn`t so now here with are with all of it.

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Romneycare. He was very proud of Romneycare, and that’s the only thing he stayed firm on.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 6:18 PM

You forgot the attribution to Ann.

rik on January 13, 2013 at 6:23 PM

As far as Sarah Palin. She has not done what she needed to to be a real GOP Presidential contender. What she needed to do is win statewide office again. Until she does that she quit her last office that is simply a fact. She needs to prove she can win state wide again to prove she could win Nation wide.

But for now the GOP is Whig 100%. It is an unworkable mess. A mess that it is difficult to see how it is ever fixed.

So actually Sarah does have another way to become President. Do the work with others to form a new real Tea Party. If she could do that there would be no doubt she could win nationally.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM

RINO hunting!! The best fun

rik on January 13, 2013 at 6:15 PM

and it’s not like they’re endangered….the herds have been getting larger!

win/win

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:25 PM

The toughest part of a successful Conservative victory. Winning. Conservatism is something that relies on folks having the good sense to see its virtues above other political philosophies. You must make the decision to come to it. You must be interested enough to support it. Sadly, the interest of low info types rules the day. Conservatism is losing. Idiocy is the sure winner. Its the easy thing to do. It takes no effort not to think very deeply philosophically. It is why we are where we are. Even though most people live life with Conservative meaning. Conservative moral codes. Even the Atheist gets their moral code from Conservatism. Its not enough. It takes self to come to it. We can’t force it upon the unwilling and the disinterested. And so the trend will continue. Until it is done.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Less than what would have stuck with Obama, so it depends on whether that`s good enough. It apparently wasn`t so now here with are with all of it.

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 6:21 PM

So, you don’t know what the good parts were either?

I didn’t know what the good parts of illegal immigration were either.

I didn’t know what the good parts of gun control were either.

I didn’t know what the good parts of increased spending were either.

I guess there wasn’t a whole lot of difference between Oromna or Bamney, after all. Why bother to vote against either one? Apparently, you thought voting against Obama was worth it. Maybe putting your grandkids in the poor house was OK with you, as long as it was the republicans doing it. We certainly don’t like the way the democrats were putting your grandkids in the poor house.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Romneycare. He was very proud of Romneycare, and that’s the only thing he stayed firm on.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 6:18 PM

You forgot the attribution to Ann.

rik on January 13, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Ann Coulter?

She thought Romneycare was conservative as I recall.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 6:28 PM

The toughest part of a successful Conservative victory. Winning. Conservatism is something that relies on folks having the good sense to see its virtues above other political philosophies. You must make the decision to come to it. You must be interested enough to support it. Sadly, the interest of low info types rules the day. Conservatism is losing. Idiocy is the sure winner. Its the easy thing to do. It takes no effort not to think very deeply philosophically. It is why we are where we are. Even though most people live life with Conservative meaning. Conservative moral codes. Even the Atheist gets their moral code from Conservatism. Its not enough. It takes self to come to it. We can’t force it upon the unwilling and the disinterested. And so the trend will continue. Until it is done.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM

………………….^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Ann Coulter?

She thought Romneycare was conservative as I recall.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 6:28 PM

used to have such a crush on her.

Now her cred lays in tatters at Romney’s feet.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM

The massive GOP win in 2010 happened but that didn’t really have much to do with Mitt. The economy was in the tank, the Democrats were down in the dumps after Odumbo turned out to be more man than messiah and the GOP won big against a low Democrat voter turnout. What does Mitt have to do with any of that?

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Were not all the things you listed worse in 2012? Low DNC turnout, Obama not liked, economy all worse in 2012.

The only difference is GOP losses in 2012 and wins in 2010. Why? The message in 2012 was GOPe.

You really prove my point. Mitt would have nothing to do with the Tea Party Conservative message and lost BIG TIME. He also lost seats in the Senate and House because of his GOPe message he set for the entire party and his bashing of conservative republicans every chance he got.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:31 PM

The GOP won 2010 BIG TIME with a Conservative Message.

2012 the GOPe ran with the least Conservative Message since Nixon at least.

So the leaders of the GOP are either insane or so arrogant they think they can turn a Conservative win into a GOPe win. Well they could not.

Fact is there was no Conservative Message in 2012. The GOP leadership made sure of that.

Of course the GOP leadership has a huge say in how the States set primary dates after all they are supposedly on the same team. Is a State GOP party really going to buck the National Party that much. No.

But that is right you are totally arrogant you know not common sense.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:18 PM

How did the GOP leadership make sure there was no conservative message in 2012? Who exactly was is that decided this? Why would they decide to do that if a conservative message had just won in 2010? What steps did this person (or people) take to make sure it was the case? I want the names of these puppet masters, too.

But I know I’m not going to get any of that because it’s a conspiracy you cooked up in your head.

The bottom line is there was nothing stopping anyone from articulating a conservative message in the presidential race and winning the nomination. The wild swings in the pre-election polls in late 2011 as different candidates got in shows how hungry people were for it. The base latched onto Bachmann, Perry, Cain, even Donald freaking Trump looking for someone tough who would take the fight to Obama. The idea someone somewhere wouldn’t allow a conservative message is a total myth.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Conservatism is losing.
Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Name once in the last 50 years that conservatism lost a national election. Surely you don’t mean Romney. Even Clinton ran as a conservative to win the second time around. It is certainly a testament to the GOP power brokers that the democrats have put up the most conservative (opportunistic) candidate in the last 20 years.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:32 PM

and it’s not like they’re endangered….the herds have been getting larger!

win/win

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:25 PM

I guess the folks in AZ need to go to the range a little more often

rik on January 13, 2013 at 6:32 PM

So how do conservatives come together in one unified monster demographic?

darlus on January 13, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Conservatism is losing.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Yes…but only in Party Leadership.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:34 PM

RINO hunting!! The best fun

rik on January 13, 2013 at 6:15 PM

and it’s not like they’re endangered….the herds have been getting larger!

win/win

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:25 PM

You kill it, you eat it.

ElectricPhase on January 13, 2013 at 6:34 PM

used to have such a crush on her.

Now her cred lays in tatters at Romney’s feet.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM

In the last two elections a lot of Republicans commentators and columnists have shown themselves to be more Sideshow Bob than true believer.

sharrukin on January 13, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Sure thing. We’re winning big. Just look around. Protect your guns, protect your healthcare, protect your investments.Those mean Conservatives that rule the roost are out to take it all away from you. Are you blind to it? Or am I just wandering around aimlessly?

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:35 PM

So, you don’t know what the good parts were either?

I didn’t know what the good parts of illegal immigration were either.

I didn’t know what the good parts of gun control were either.

I didn’t know what the good parts of increased spending were either.

I guess there wasn’t a whole lot of difference between Oromna or Bamney, after all. Why bother to vote against either one? Apparently, you thought voting against Obama was worth it. Maybe putting your grandkids in the poor house was OK with you, as long as it was the republicans doing it. We certainly don’t like the way the democrats were putting your grandkids in the poor house.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Good grief take a pill. You’re getting hysterical. He said he’d repeal ObamaCare a number of times.

If you are saying he’s lying I can’t argue that because we’ll never know, just as you can’t prove he is lying. So you keep on with the unfounded and unprovable allegations.

As for the other hysterical rantings about guns, immigration and spending? WTF? You honestly think there’s no difference between Obama and Romney so there’s really nothing I can say to you.

Wow.

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Yes…but only in Party Leadership.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:34 PM

No, sadly I’m afraid it is more than that. It takes an interested and engaged public. We have neither.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:36 PM

used to have such a crush on her him.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM

FIFY

rik on January 13, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Folks, face it Conservatism is on the decline, as is the Nation.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:38 PM

You kill it, you eat it.

ElectricPhase on January 13, 2013 at 6:34 PM

lol…I was speaking metaphorically…I wouldn’t have one AT my table…let alone ON it.

(all fat, no real meat)

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Or am I just wandering around aimlessly?

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Aimlessly and in denial, as well.

I note you did not answer my one question. Hint: It’s because you’re not able to do so. I hope someone on your side actually makes a point soon. It’s getting old watching you insult and attack without regard or recourse to facts. You are rapidly becoming Not Worthy Of Reply.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:38 PM

FIFY

rik on January 13, 2013 at 6:37 PM

lol…stop that!

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM

………………….^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Yup…

SWalker on January 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM

You are rapidly becoming Not Worthy Of Reply.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Since my world revolves around what you think of me. Let me help you along with that a bit. Conservatism is on the rise. Just any moment now it will seize the reigns and straighten all of this out. Oh,…..and,…..Bite me!

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM

No, sadly I’m afraid it is more than that. It takes an interested and engaged public. We have neither.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:36 PM

I’m betting on a tweaked and pissed off electorate come midterms ( a la 2010 )…and I’m putting my fingers in my ears yelling LALALALALALA at you ’til then….. ;-)

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:43 PM

You kill it, you eat it.

ElectricPhase on January 13, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Use it to feed the guard dogs

Rio Linda Refugee on January 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:26 PM
………………….^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Talk about complete arrogance and condensation.

An piece about how conservatism can never win in 2010 right after a huge loss for the opposing point of view in 2012.

I was going to repost this nonsense but realized there was no point.

People love the feeling of standing for the right. Sure like Paul said “all men sin and fall short of the Glory of I Am who I Am.” But that hardly means that sinners do not support laws. Almost any sinner would beat a man who raped his sister even though he might rape women himself. A thief will go after someone that steals from him in a heart beat.

Point is. Most people do understand that every one being on welfare will not work all that long. That 11 States with the majority on welfare is not workable. That Trillion debts every year will not last long. But they had no choice in 2012. Both candidates had the same positions on every issue when it came down to it. There was no conservative message on the National level. There was absolutely no valid reason to vote GOP in a large number of seats.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

He said he’d repeal ObamaCare a number of times

He said he liked “parts of it” and that he’d keep the “good parts.” Yet he didn’t say what those were. He did flipflop once his true message was firmly and soundly panned by us conservatives. Funny that we looked at his record and saw “Northeastern Liberal.”

You’re so anti-Obama that you can’t even see that Romney was the other side of Obama. You’re so partisan you cannot even remember what he did as governor. If I am hysterical, you are delusional.

Bite me!
Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Congratulations, NWOR. Maybe one day your side will come up with an argument.

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:43 PM

; )

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Lol!!! That is some funny, funny stuff right there! Especially considering the source. Funny!!!

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:46 PM

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for it.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Too bad.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Quite the authority this one. Please continue to tell me how to comport myself here. How to live my life. What to think. Cause I certainly wouldn’t want to do anything that you don’t recommend.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:49 PM

You’re so anti-Obama that you can’t even see that Romney was the other side of Obama.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Let’s see. Benghazi. F&F. Guns. Marxism. Flexibility. EOs.

That’s just for starters.

Yep. I’m anti-Obama.

Toodles.

kim roy on January 13, 2013 at 6:49 PM

With all due respect. “we” gave us Rubio, Paul (Rand), Cruz, Johnson, , the guy in Utah, Haley and sme others hat I can’t recall right now. Occasionally you lose. Angle, Odonnal, the guy n Indiana, and Akin may very well have won had they nit been DESTOYED by GOP. At least a couple anyway. I’ve believed for years that a third party just guarantees another generation of Wandering n the wilderness. I now say, SO WHAT? it’s not like they have an argument for winning with McCain or Romney. This country is over as of now. Lets destroy the GOP first (inadvertently of course, they are welcome to join in) and then we’ll see what’s left. There WILL be a third party in 2016. Take it to the bank. They won’t let us win the nomination and we will nit put their nominee over the top. It’s just going to be out in the open. And yes Sarah will be involved but nit at the top. Just mho. I’ve NEVER owned a gun until two weeks ago. I now own an Ar15 and a .308 a r10. no I’m not preparing fir cvil warbut I have them fir whatever symbolism anybody cares to put on it. PS Lenin destroyed the “moderate” menshovikes before he took on the white army loyalists. We need to learn from our enemies as well as our friends.

douglucy on January 13, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Bye.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Talk about complete arrogance and condensation.

.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:44 PM

After your repeated misuse of this word we are now laughing at you at will not takeyou seriously.

Rio Linda Refugee on January 13, 2013 at 6:50 PM

We win when we run true social and fiscal conservatives

Bullhead on January 13, 2013 at 6:51 PM

mentally retarded!
(do they still use that term nowadays?)

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I don’t think so…someone went nuts on me on another website….can’t remember the PC term though.

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:07 PM

HotAirLib?

RovesChins on January 13, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Oh….one last thing….Thanks for proving my point there wino.

Bmore on January 13, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Rio Linda Refugee on January 13, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Maybe he has humidity issues?

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:53 PM

douglucy on January 13, 2013 at 6:50 PM

this, too, except with “not” spelled correctly.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:54 PM

HotAirLib?

RovesChins on January 13, 2013 at 6:52 PM

lol…hey rc!

Tim_CA on January 13, 2013 at 6:54 PM

We win when we run true social and or fiscal conservatives

Bullhead on January 13, 2013 at 6:51 PM

FIFY

We have run neither since 1984, to my knowledge.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Were not all the things you listed worse in 2012? Low DNC turnout, Obama not liked, economy all worse in 2012.

The only difference is GOP losses in 2012 and wins in 2010. Why? The message in 2012 was GOPe.

You really prove my point. Mitt would have nothing to do with the Tea Party Conservative message and lost BIG TIME. He also lost seats in the Senate and House because of his GOPe message he set for the entire party and his bashing of conservative republicans every chance he got.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Democrat turnout was much higher in 2012 than in 2010. The economy was better in 2012 than in 2010. So those were different, contrary to your statement that the only difference was the message. Heck, it could be argued that after the 2010 House showed up and started to talk about real cuts that people freaked out because they thought Congress would take freebies away from other people but not them and the voters themselves pulled away from what was a winning message in the last midterm. I hate to consider the possibility but it is still a possibility. You don’t get to just heap all the blame on Romney and some imaginary shadowy figure within the upper echelon on the GOP just because that’s what’s most comfortable for you.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Democrat turnout was much higher in 2012 than in 2010.

This is accounted for by it being a midterm vs presidential election. Strawman.

… it could be argued that after the 2010 House showed up and started to talk about real cuts that people freaked out….

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.

You don’t get to just heap all the blame on Romney

I blame only Romney for Romney’s loss. He refused to attack Obama as he willingly and gleefully attacked his primary foes. I think he did this because he truly disagreed with Bachmann and Perry, but actually agreed with Obama – just as he admitted in the third debate.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Democrat turnout was much higher in 2012 than in 2010. The economy was better in 2012 than in 2010. So those were different, contrary to your statement that the only difference was the message. Heck, it could be argued that after the 2010 House showed up and started to talk about real cuts that people freaked out because they thought Congress would take freebies away from other people but not them and the voters themselves pulled away from what was a winning message in the last midterm. I hate to consider the possibility but it is still a possibility. You don’t get to just heap all the blame on Romney and some imaginary shadowy figure within the upper echelon on the GOP just because that’s what’s most comfortable for you.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:58 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

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.

Next time their guy loses in a primary, maybe they should think twice about undermining from the beginning the guy who won if they’re that concerned about the seat.

xblade on January 13, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 7:07 PM

^^This^^

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 7:19 PM

The GOP will betray you

True_King on January 13, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I know that I personally decided not to vote based on Mitt’s democrat-lite message and history.

Wino

Congratulations then…you got democrat-heavy instead, most likely because you’re actually ok with it.

xblade on January 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM

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.

Next time their guy loses in a primary, maybe they should think twice about undermining from the beginning the guy who won if they’re that concerned about the seat.

xblade on January 13, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Flawed. Meaning he was not GOPe. (The GOPe prefers a Democrat over a Conservative you see they prove this time and time again)

First of all the premises is a lie. They fought tooth and nail to make sure that Mourdock lost. They were hardly disinterested. They undermined but they did so on purpose using a plan designed prior to the election.

I mean until 2012 and Mitt Romney the GOP was Pro Life. Now the GOPe is firmly Pro Choice. No Pro Life GOP member allowed to win.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 7:25 PM


Folks, face it Conservatism is on the decline, as is the Nation.

The nation is in decline because the social welfare system of organization in its final phase. This is true everywhere. The social welfare state is unsustainable. As a practical matter it’s bankrupt. There is nothing anyone can do–right, left, or centre–that can halt the collapse of our bankrupt governments.

The right, on the other hand, struggles fiercely mostly with itself because it is differentiating along several ideological dimensions. This is a sign of growth. The same dynamic is playing itself out in Israel where the right has developed through differentiation into a right-spectrum while the left is treading water: http://www.timesofisrael.com/a-different-israel-after-january-22/ The same dynamic is playing itself out in the UK with the rise of UKIP and other independent groups on the right sucking the life out of the establishment Tories.

The centre-left is increasingly irrelevant. They had the greatest chance in a generation to raise taxes on what they consider to be the rich and all they got was a lousy US$600bn tax increase over 5 years combined with making permanent the Bush era tax cuts after years of railing against them, and this was with them pushing against a dispirited and divided House GOP in the hands of the least effective leaders since the Bush era, and by Bush era I mean the congressional leaders of the Bush era circa 1988-92. The centre-left may seem powerful at the moment but that’s an illusion. The very basis of their power–the social welfare state, the system itself–is in a death-spiral. Let it burn.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 7:26 PM

xblade on January 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM

No, WE got it, because the GOP shunned the Tea Party and conservatives (again). You prefer to continue to support the establishment candidates solely because they have an R after their names.

I finally drew the line and stopped supporting compassionate conservatives such as Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2, McCain, and Romney. I went along for over 20 years, and only voted for McCain because of Sarah Palin. I even printed my own bumper sticker “Palin for Vice President.”

Never again will I waste my vote on a democrat-lite. Either they put forward a candidate who has a majority of views I agree with, or I’ll stay home or vote third party. Eventually, you might see the light, as well.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 7:28 PM

you got democrat-heavy instead, most likely because you’re actually ok with it.

xblade on January 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Yea because he could not actually believe what he said.

Arrogant and Condescending moron.

You seem totally incapable of understanding that conservatives actually believe in not voting for evil. In fact they will vote against evil if necessary. We really believed Mitt was evil. Get that through your head. Mitt was against the core believes of the GOP. He did not even pretend to support the Pro Life plank of the GOP.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Never again will I waste my vote on a democrat-lite. Either they put forward a candidate who has a majority of views I agree with, or I’ll stay home or vote third party. Eventually, you might see the light, as well.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Agreed.

By the way I can not think of a single Mitt Romney view I agree with. I mean one he supported with actions.

In fact I have no idea what he actually believed. It changed every day.

Steveangell on January 13, 2013 at 7:33 PM

The very basis of their power–the social welfare state, the system itself–is in a death-spiral. Let it burn.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 7:26 PM

This, too. Romney would have expanded it just like those who came before him.

Except not the “bad parts,” whatever those were.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 7:34 PM

We really believed Mitt was evil.

I understand that you want to make a point but I never believed that Romney was “evil.” Stupid, yes. A blithering idiot, most definitely. A so-called numbers guy who couldn’t read a g_d damned poll, oh f*** yeah. A knee-jerk progressive ideological cross-dresser who honestly believed in his heart of hearts that he was fooling anyone at all when he insisted he was a “severe conservative” because he wore his hair the same way for 30 years, yes, yes of course, yes that was Wee Willy Willard the Merry Mayor of LoserVille, the GOP establishment’s big F*** YOU to the base voters of the GOP itself.

But evil? No.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 7:37 PM


In fact I have no idea what he actually believed. It changed every day.

I’m right there with you on that. Why did he want to be president again?

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Since the Republicans aren’t smart enough to run fiscal conservatives, I have returned my 2013 membership renewal to Reince Priebus in the postage paid envelope…

Time for TEA for me…

Khun Joe on January 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Oh, I did something. I voted for Virgil Goode as a protest vote.

If you hate evil, don’t nominate an evil man like Romney.

Stoic Patriot on January 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM

I liked his stance on illegal immigration the best.

FloatingRock on January 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM

First.

Bishop on January 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM

But evil? No.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Agreed. Actually, I think he was and is a good man.

I just don’t agree with his liberal politics.

Wino on January 13, 2013 at 7:43 PM

How did the GOP leadership make sure there was no conservative message in 2012? Who exactly was is that decided this? Why would they decide to do that if a conservative message had just won in 2010? What steps did this person (or people) take to make sure it was the case? I want the names of these puppet masters, too.

But I know I’m not going to get any of that because it’s a conspiracy you cooked up in your head.

The bottom line is there was nothing stopping anyone from articulating a conservative message in the presidential race and winning the nomination. The wild swings in the pre-election polls in late 2011 as different candidates got in shows how hungry people were for it. The base latched onto Bachmann, Perry, Cain, even Donald freaking Trump looking for someone tough who would take the fight to Obama. The idea someone somewhere wouldn’t allow a conservative message is a total myth.

alchemist19 on January 13, 2013 at 6:31 PM

You’re full of sh*t and you know it.

Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, Rhoades, the entire Bush/Romney operation made the mistake of taking as their primary mission the need to reach out to “independent” and former Obama voters. They deliberately, and I do mean deliberately, downplayed any connection to Palin or other Conservatives during the fall. Especially Palin.

This wasn’t a conspiracy theory, this was what two campaigns in a row, McCain’s and Romney’s, did while running themselves into the ground. They wanted to be friendly to the news media and liked by the Press, so they tried to run as “moderates”.

You see how that worked out for them.

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.

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


This, too. Romney would have expanded it just like those who came before him.

I have no doubt that he would have tried–he would have been all over the Sandy Hook massacre to reprise his state-level attempts to confiscate assault weapons–but we are talking about Romney, after all. He’s never been known for his competence.

casuist on January 13, 2013 at 7:45 PM

First.

Bishop on January 13, 2013 at 7:40 PM

…oh oh!…*runs*…

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 7:45 PM

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

…oh oh!…*runs*…

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 7:45 PM

You’ll only die tired.

Bishop on January 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM

The Republican war on Republicans

…yep!…500 easy peasy!

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Sadly, the interest of low info types rules the day. Conservatism is losing. Idiocy is the sure winner.

Very true. And, Gallup polling indicates that those most likely to trust the media are liberals and the least educated (e.g. low-information voters). Unfortunately, low-information voters are told it’s their patriotic duty to vote. They would do the country a favor by staying home.

bw222 on January 13, 2013 at 8:05 PM

All I know – is that Willard-bots told us that WE HAD TO WIN INDIES if we wanted to win the election.

Well – Willard did win indies – and he won ‘em big.

He lost the election.

So this bullshite about “indies rule” is exactly that and now it’s proven.

That doesn’t mean though – that you guys won’t go out and try for a THIRD time in 2016 and F*** that Chicken once more!

HondaV65 on January 13, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6