Daily Caller
Barone: Too many tea party “wackos, weirdos and witches” cost us Senate seats
Conservative political analyst Michael Barone told an audience in Washington that Republicans put “too many” tea party “wackos, weirdos and witches” on the ballot this year, costing them seats in the U.S. Senate.
“Twenty-three Democratic seats up, only ten Republican seats up — it looked like a sure chance for Republican gains and a good possibility of gaining four seats that would give them the majority leadership even if Barack Obama was re-elected,” Barone explained during a speech at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center near Capitol Hill on Friday.
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: « Previous 1 2
Are people here actually claiming that Akin and Mourdock’s comments didn’t have any effect on other Senate races when they got national news coverage?
Lotta morons this morning, it seems.
KingGold on November 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM
How’d they get that far, huh?
Why does the system projectile vomit these idiots at us?
Why are these the Republican candidates we have to choose from?
vityas on November 10, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Having helped in the Cruz campaign, I beg to differ a bit. He credited her endorsement in helping him win the primary and she did that a few days before the primary putting him into the runoff with Dewhurst. There were several conservatives who backed him early on, DeMint being one of the first. And it was the grassroot who worked their a$$es off for him. So while she deserves some credit, she wasn’t the sole reason he won. He had picked up momentum long before she stepped in.
TxAnn56 on November 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Maybe we needed Sarah Palin out on the campaign trail firing up the conservatives that didn’t vote…
Aplombed on November 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM
topdawg on November 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Rubio no doubt though(along with Rand Paul) is a shining example of how great a Tea Party-backed candidate can turn out even with the establishment opposing them every step of the way. Either of those dudes could headline a GOP Presidential ticket in the near future.
Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM
Oh c’mon. Yes Rubio was backed by the TP but only because Crist was so bad. Once elected, Rubio dissed the TP, and what precisely has Rubio done since he’s been in the Senate, other than give a couple of good speeches and campaign for Romney? Face it. Rubio is a Jeb Bush acolyte, GOPe to the bone. He sold out the TP and he’ll sell out true conservatives.
NoNails on November 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM
M
Are you blaming it on Palin?
NoNails on November 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Rubio is definitely a sell out. After Obama did his unilateral unconstitutional dream act before the election, Rubio’s own words were “I welcome the leniency on deportation”. There was a lot more he said, but he’s a Bush clone through and through.
TxAnn56 on November 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM
Remember when the Tea Party was all about fiscal issues?
And the GOP refused to embrace them?
And then social conservative candidates started talking retarded?
And then the GOP blamed the Tea Party for the socons being retarded?
And then the GOP got destroyed in the 2012 elections?
And then the GOP blamed the Tea Party that they never embraced, again?
The Tea Party doesn’t give a rat’s ass about abortion or gay marriage. We care about the disastrous fiscal situation this country is in and are pissed off that the 2 parties in power refuse to do a damn thing about it.
Suck it Barone, this is all your and your ilk’s fault.
Spliff Menendez on November 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Spliff Menendez on November 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM
+1 to pretty much everything you said.
Doomberg on November 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM
And that right there is truth. Except the true conservative part, since I don’t see how demanding how individuals live their lives is going to save the country from $16,000,000,000,000 and counting.
Spliff Menendez on November 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Would Toomey really be considered a Tea Party candidate? He ran for the nomination and lost to SPECTRE before there even was a Tea Party. Johnson I suppose could be considered Tea Party, but even that’s a stretch.
[Doughboy on November 10, 2012 at 9:30 AM]
Don’t let them force you into the rut of their making, ‘i.e., that the TP only supports brand new candidates, because it pretty much defaults to the ‘wackos, weirdos and witches’ label when they lose. Treat the Tea Party candidate label based on when the candidate got the support and that would be the primaries. And don’t let them use Tea party candidates in the primary as the yardstick, because anyone can take a shot at running and split TP support.
If they had major backing of TP’ers in the primaries they’re a TP candidate.
Dusty on November 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Romney.
Aplombed on November 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM
mittens is a loser…the gop dissed sarah and all things conservative…karma is a b#@*!
Pragmatic on November 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM
The headline for the linked article doesn’t note that he starts off by saying that the Tea Party brought in a number of talented candidates, choosing instead to only quote the caveat afterwards, which has a good bit of truth to it.
Democrats harp on about the Republican “War On Women™,” and what our candidates do to allay those fears to the general public? One of them says that women don’t get pregnant from rape because of magical vagina rape shielding. The other added a corollary to this science fact, saying that if did happen, it was because God intended it. Akin and Mourdock, seriously? There exists, in this great nation, states that would select those two idiots to be their overlords?
It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Hell, it probably wouldn’t even be funny.
mintycrys on November 10, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Actually that’s a good point Steve. Why did Allen and Thompson lose? My theory is that people are tired of seeing them. Why can’t the GOP find some fresh young faces and win with those? Why is it always the same people running year after year?
IdrilofGondolin on November 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM
~~~~~~~
I voted for Allen in the General election, but not in the primary…just as you said, I wanted someone new and fresh, not someone who has been around forever. Politics is a lot like the NFL, the same old, fired coaches keep getting hired…can’t we find anyone new and energetic?
ellifint on November 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM
True conservatives believe that social issues belong at the state and local issues. Yes, they may be pro-life and pro-traditional family, but most of them can separate their personal opinions from their federal governance.
I like Palin’s stance on social issues- Persuasion is preferred over legislation.
NoNails on November 10, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Truth..:)
idesign on November 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Akin wasn’t a Tea Party candidate. Unfortunately, the tea Party split their vote between the other 2 Republican candidates.
huckleberryfriend on November 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM
Deb Fischer was the underdog here until Palin endorsed her. The next thing you know Fischer blew out the competition in the primary and went on to win the seat.
Was Palin the deciding factor? I think so in that it caused a lot of people to take a closer look at Fischer. They decided she was a good pick.
Dack Thrombosis on November 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM
The headline for the linked article doesn’t note that he starts off by saying that the Tea Party brought in a number of talented candidates, choosing instead to only quote the caveat afterwards, which has a good bit of truth to it.
Democrats harp on about the Republican “War On Women™,” and what our candidates do to allay those fears to the general public? One of them says that women don’t get pregnant from rape because of magical hooha rape shielding. The other added a corollary to this science fact, saying that if did happen, it was because God intended it. Akin and Mourdock, seriously? There exists, in this great nation, states that would select those two idiots to be their overlords?
It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. Hell, it probably wouldn’t even be funny.
mintycrys on November 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM
http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/11/the-consequences-of-snubbing-the-tea-party.html
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM
I should also add that Fischer is the first person from the western part of the state (meaning outside the Omaha-Lincoln area in the east) to win a Senate seat in decades.
Dack Thrombosis on November 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Why are you surprised they selected Obama to be their overloard.
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Welcome to America.
mintycrys on November 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM
True “conservatives”
They actually do belong there. Unfortunately, they are all up in the federal government level.
First one, family. The federal government incentivizes not have children. They take money from the young who would create families making them more expensive, and then take that money to hand out to old people. When you are making your life choices, you see the cost of raising children and might chose not to, because you can rely on OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN to provide for your well being in old age.
Second one, family. The federal government incentivizes families to not be created in the first place and to break up if they are together. They force states to provide welfare to single parents and medicaid. Get married or stay married and you do not get access to these monies.
Third one, morals. Good morals have good outcomes in general, that is why they are good morals. The government backstops everyone’s bad moral choices. Making bad morals something more and more people can partake in. So long as the government makes those choices come with a financial backstop, the government owes us to keep the number of people partaking in these financial wealth transfers due to bad morals minimized.
Until we get rid of Social security/medicare and welfare/medicaid and the plethora of other wealth transfers to individuals, opening an everything is allowed no matter how self destructive is only a path to an even worse outcome.
astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 10:29 AM
follow the money. It is easier to bribe 435 congressman and senators than 50 state houses and senates. thus the crony capitalist will always try to federalize their pet progects and/or cause so that it reduces their workload.
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM
I am so ready for a 3rd party.
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Shove it, both of you unless you want us 3-legged conservatives to sit home next time.
njrob on November 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM
We get it. You’re an anti-Christian tool that knows how to cut and paste. But once is enough.
njrob on November 10, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Okay, then maybe he should blame GOTV and its creators rather than the Tea Party for his clusterfark prognositatiosn–it was Dick Morrisesk in its level of bad.
Thomas More on November 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM
This. To those of you who have made the ugly comments about various posters that found Mitt Romney a bridge too far I never heard squat from you in 2010 when members of the GOP voted for the other guy because they thought Buck, O’Donnel and Angle were a bridge too far. Instead you attacked the those candidates while still studiously defending Romney. I call that hypocrisy and it carried over to this election season.
chemman on November 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM
What are you going on about? Do you even know what cutting and pasting is?
mintycrys on November 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Oh I see, comment finally appeared after an hour. Lovely moderation going on, here.
Or I need to quit using Chrome.
mintycrys on November 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM
And then social conservative candidates started talking retarded?
Spliff Menendez on November 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM
A couple of socon candidates answered questions not to your liking. That’s different than your hasty generalization. Name calling is easy.
chemman on November 10, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Why didn’t Alvin Greene cost the Dems the Senate in the 2010 midterms? I think most would agree that he qualifies as a “wacko” and a “weirdo.”
steebo77 on November 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Shhhhhhhhhhh!!! Don’t disturb the narrative…
Gohawgs on November 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM
That is exactly what they want. They desire that anyone that may be a socon to leave the party. They forget that most socons play out their beliefs in their local communities and aren’t looking to shove their beliefs down other people’s throat’s unlike the moderates and progressives. The GOP was a minority party in congress for well over 50 years. It was the socons (most who are also National Defense cons and Fiscal cons) that came out of their non-voting habits in the 70′s and started voting. I’m sure the loss of 17% of the electorate would benefit the GOP. After all without most of that 17% who voted for Romney. He would have won, right.
chemman on November 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Well, thanks for letting me know. I apparently didn’t get the official notice that only greedy libertines are welcome in the Tea Party. Someone really should have let me know sooner that I and my money is no longer welcome. I’ll be sure to unsubscribe to their emails, tell them to stop calling me, etc… I can use the extra money anyway.
pannw on November 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM
The Tea Party seems to have had success with getting people elected to the House, but it definitely picked unelectable candidates for the Senate.
OxyCon on November 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Problem: those candidates that Barone disapproves of won their primaries. How do you stop someone from running in a primary? Do you have some kind of party apparatus poobahs that get to decide who has the privilege of getting onto a primary ballot?
I’d rather see Republican primary processes cleaned up so only party members can vote, which keeps democratic party meddling out. Let’s also take control of primary debates to make sure that the full set of issues are covered. Letting the democratic party-controlled media run our debates has been a disaster. How was it possible that Akin never fielded tough questions about abortion before?
slickwillie2001 on November 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM
When you own the news media, wonderful things are possible.
slickwillie2001 on November 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Ted Cruz Deb fischer tea party vs allen and thompson GOPe who makes bad picks again?
And lets not forget the whopper of all 2012 Mitt Romney was a GOPe pick ALL the way. a Tea party candidate for POTUS would have wiped the floor with Obama but o the gOPe and the moderates wanted their man Mitt.
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM
one all the gop candidates in the primary in MO were pro-life so the issue didn’t come up to my knowledge….2 and more importantly the dem war on women strategy wasn’t in play yet so the media didn’t get their marching orders at the time of the MO primary..
unseen on November 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM
You posted your exact same idiotic screed twice. So yes, I think I know what cutting and pasting is.
njrob on November 10, 2012 at 1:28 PM
Ahh, just saw your later post about not seeing the double posting. I retract my statement. Just tired of people attacking socially conservative values. Evangelicals voted for Mittens. Look at the breakdown of the election. It’s the Catholics and other squishes that couldn’t vote for a mAssachusetts republican.
njrob on November 10, 2012 at 1:33 PM
They don’t get that socially conservative people just want to be left alone, but we’re getting liberal garbage shoved down our throats everywhere. We don’t want our children to be indoctrinated to think our beliefs are evil. How can anyone disagree with that statement. Amazing how people always forget about religious liberty.
njrob on November 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Fair enough. I’m very pro-religion, but recent candidates who bill themselves as “social conservatives” have underperformed spectacularly, primarily because the media tries to get them to say things they know won’t fly with the electorate-at-large, and they take the bait every damn time, which means that they are incompetent politicians. Religion should be kept at a state and local level, and local values should influence local elections, which, in turn, effect state elections, which influences the makeup of the federal government. Unfortunately, liberals play the federal game primarily, which means we have to do the same, and if you want to play on the federal level, being poor at politicking is about the worst thing you can be terrible at. Akin and Mourdock discovered this firsthand, for better or worse.
mintycrys on November 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM
Slow down there. I, personally, have no problems with the socons or their agenda and have no problems working with them to pass their agenda in return for their assistance in getting the fiscal conservative agenda passed. I’m just pointing out that the Tea Party and social conservative movement aren’t the same thing and the establishment’s attempt to conflate the two weakens both.
Doomberg on November 10, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2