RCP
David Brooks: The establishment will eventually defeat the tea party
And, so far , it seems to be just the candidates. One of the interesting things — and I can’t say I know the answer to this — is, how much will the Tea Party fight back? There has been some effort that they are saying, oh, the establishment is taking over.
But my own sense of things so far is that there is not the will to fight among the Tea Party and that a lot of people in the Tea Party are, frankly — they’re not — they are also Republicans. And a lot of — say, Rush Limbaugh, for example, who is not Tea Party, he’s more an establishment Republican who wants the Republican Party to win.
So I have a feeling that the establishment is going to have maybe an easier time of it than some might think.
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 Next »
I recall the fence sitters of history who couldn’t decide Tory or Patriot were pretty much saying King George, the establishment was gonna win too.
Badger40 on February 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Well, David, you have a great start on it with electing Barry.
Limerick on February 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Congo line of Bush ass kissers, Rove, Brooks, on down like that.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 10, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Self-fulfilling prophecy
fogw on February 10, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Of course the establishment will win. They will win by default, when 85% of their base walks away. Then all that remains will be the ‘gills of the party.
nobar on February 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM
Oh, lord! The TP is a political philosophy — not a “party.” It can’t be defeated.
Blake on February 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Kiss my fanny, Brooks. We’ve yet begun to fight.
Lincoln Cadillac on February 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM
The fact that the “establishment ” chooses to defeat the TP rather than the Progressive Democrats is exactly why the TP exists in the first place and will ultimately win. Sorry Brooks but time is passing you by.
Weight of Glory on February 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM
This is soooo stupid … David Brooks you idiot.
“Defeat” … what exactly does that mean? Does that mean that the establishment will FORCE Tea Party folks to go to the polls and vote for Ayatollah squishes?
Don’t think so man – and THAT is the whole problem with establishment thinking. They are such a bunch of fascist (yeah fascist – because they don’t believe in Democracy) … fascist thugs that they actually believe they can FORCE ME to vote for their idiots.
News Flash – YOU CAN’T AND GUESS WHAT – I VOTED FOR OBAMA RATHER THAN VOTE FOR YOUR SAD LEFTIST RINO NOMINEE.
AND I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE!!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
HondaV65 on February 10, 2013 at 10:24 AM
At some point, tea party conservatives will realize that capital doesn’t need or care about them. Capital wants unfettered access to political power and the tea party represents a set of people, who even in their belief in free market principles, who are less likely to be bought. And therefore they are a threat. As usual, the tea party thinks their enemy is the state when in fact, the state merely does what capital wants.
libfreeordie on February 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM
It’s time the Tea Party fall back and let the RINOS and thier Socialist buddies govern. In 2014, when the economy is still in shambles despite Barry’s class warfare, watch the Tea Party take the Senate. I don’t think we should get involved with this mess or respond anymore. See you in 2014 suckers.
celticdefender on February 10, 2013 at 10:28 AM
Yes. I for one can’t wait for the Tea Party to be crushed and for Rove to be placed in charge of the GOP. As I see it, the Tea Party won back the House in 2010 and defeated at least 4 RINOs (Crist, Specter, Bennett, and Lugar), two of whom actually became Democrats followimg their losses, and a third (Lugar) who scorched the earth following his primary defeat and helped weaken Mourdock.
Rove’s track record is far better. Aside from 2004, he’s managed to lose just about everything he’s touched, including the fail-whale that was American Crossroads in 2012. His cry on election night for Fox News to not call Ohio yet was particilarly funny, since I have it on good information that Ohio Republicans called Romney at 7:45 election night to tell him he lost Ohio. (The polls closed at 7:30 and at tht monent, early voting numbers were released. The GOP knew then that Obama won based on how well he’d done in early voting).
Outlander on February 10, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Ever notice how the commentariat never bemoans the near-extinction of the Blue Dog Democrat, or what it will take for them to wrestle the party back from the radicalized neo-socialist wing? We need to get a better foothold in the media.
crrr6 on February 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Well of course the establishment will win with their beautiful expensive suits and well-creased pants.
Gingotts on February 10, 2013 at 10:32 AM
David Brooks circa 1773. “The British will eventually defeat the tea party”.
Clink on February 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM
What the establishment doesn’t realize – is that their problem isn’t so much the Tea Party as it is the American people.
The American people associate the faces of the GOP establishment Ayatollahs with the economic crash of 2007.
They will never place these faces in charge of the economy again. Doesn’t matter what the tea party does – the establishment is over – they just haven’t received the memo.
HondaV65 on February 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Wishful thinking.
UltimateBob on February 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM
I know I should not be surprised at how dull-witted David Brooks can be, but I am kind of surprised he’s so ignorant in seeing what’s before him. The Tea Party’s intent is not fighting the Republican Party or the Republican Establishment. It’s intent is to take over the Republican Party and the Republican Establishment.
Rush knows this. Heck, he argues to do just that.
So, yes, the Republican Party and the Republican Establishment will remain. It’s the faces and positions that will change. And people like Brooks are so stupid they won’t know it, even if sent a Thank You Card.
Dusty on February 10, 2013 at 10:38 AM
I bet the King of England thought that too.
Oil Can on February 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Ah, looks like you and Brooks have more in common than you thought! Thanks, moron. The Kos Kidz appreciate your support.
crrr6 on February 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM
So why are you a democrat when capital has bought your party lock stock and barrel? If you’re against the capital you defined above then Sarah’s your champion against cronyism.
AH_C on February 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Whatsa ‘ matter David ? No pant creases to be found in the Tea Party ?
Lucano on February 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM
I think that Brooks may not understand Rush Limbaugh and a lot of republican primary voters as well as he claims.
I, for one, could care less if the republicans win an election. A big government republican does no more good for me then a big government democrat.
It’s not like football, where no matter what I want my team to win. When there are no real differences between the candidates and I don’t have any stake in the outcome, I won’t vote. And I doubt I’m alone.
And this is exactly what the progressive statists want. One party rule with most people disinterested in the election. The one little ray of hope was the tea party, but as we saw after ’10, no matter who we elect on the R side, they refuse to stand up to the progressives.
Timin203 on February 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM
So why are you a democrat when capital has bought your party lock stock and barrel? If you’re against the capital you defined above then Sarah’s your champion against cronyism.
[AH_C on February 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM]
She’s not complaining. She’s celebrating that the Dems are getting paid to do Capital’s work. It’s not all about policy. They appreciate profit, too, and the near monopoly of it.
Dusty on February 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM
If the GOP establishment does defeat those who support the TP principles the party will have insured its own secondary status for decades.
If/when the TP voters accept that the establishment has little interest in their issues, has little respect for their concerns and is only interested in their money & their votes, the TP voters may decide that it makes little if any difference whose in office – the Dems or the GOP. And if the GOP isn’t likely to be my advocate I have no motivation to bother at all.
katiejane on February 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM
HondaV65
This commenter would have voted for the obamanation regardless of what the RINOs did. He/she/it is a hard core dhimocraptic/librul troll. Don’t feed it. It ain’t worth it.
Old Country Boy on February 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM
Huh? The tea party has not “governed” at least in the way I voted for. They refuse to take a stand against Obama. They allow him to continue his disastrous spending and his domestic and foreign policies. The peoples branch — The House of Representatives — are supposed to be a check against tyranny by controlling the money. They could shut down the government tomorrow and not allow another dime of discretionary spending to be spent until we pass a budget the normal way, with huge cuts across the board and defunding of O-care, and they could stick to that until they get voted out of office or the dems come around.
They won’t do that because they like their easy job with cushy benefits and the slight taste of power they get. So, in essence, they tell the american people to go screw themselves because THEY finally made it and they don’t want to screw that up.
Timin203 on February 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM
I have few choices, like all of us. But outside of election years I am part of progressive movements who opposed cronyism long before Sarah Palin figured out that certain people are “bought.” You want to see a woman who trailblazed on capital’s corruption of politics, see Shirley Chisolm. But broadly, I can’t support Sarah because she is part of capital’s war mongering scheme. Interventionist foreign policy lines the pockets of defense contractors.
libfreeordie on February 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM
Yeah, they think I’m going to fall in line?
See ya, GOP.
Bishop on February 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM
already happened. and everyone who is trying to stop a third party from forming is voting for the status quo.
I would rather my voice be heard in a tiny minority in congress (3rd party) then not at all (republicans & democrats). There is 0 chance of small government types taking over the GOP — in fact, I’d say that many “small government” types are really just saying what they think they need to say to get elected, and at the end of the day have no real political philosophy and will do whatever they feel is politically expedient.
Timin203 on February 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM
ROFL
Yeah, ok.
Bishop on February 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Not so, HondaV65 wants to kill the GOPe so we can get a conservative party in its place and let the RINOs go join the donks.
AH_C on February 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM
You know, I’ve been pretty quiet since the re-Urkelection. But it is stuff like this that makes my blood boil. They are picking a fight with the wrong people.
Key West Reader on February 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM
I’m not a huge Palin fan, and as such don’t follow her very closely, but I don’t think she’s a pro-war neocon. During ’08 she had to parrot Mr Neocon himself because he was at the top of the ticket… but from pre and post-election interviews I’ve seen with her, she seems to take a more traditional approach to war — only when absolutely necessary.
And progressives are the war mongers, not real conservatives. The modern day foreign policy that both dems and many r’s seem to follow was borne out of Woodrow Wilsons foreign policy ideas — that we should use our military to advance progressive ideals around the world. Did people get rich from the iraq war? Eh, some. But I don’t think that was a big driver behind it. I think it was the neocon (aka republican progressive) idea that we can rebuild a nation in our image that was the big impetus.
Timin203 on February 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Brooks, Sheilds, Woodruff: a veritable “murderer’s row” in the MSM’s lineup of fatuous bloviators.
drunyan8315 on February 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM
Looks like a new set of talking points has gone out to the leftists.
CurtZHP on February 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Booooooooooooooooooosh!!!1!!!
Blake on February 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM
When has David Brooks been right about anything?
Yeah.
Rebar on February 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM
He was right when he saw that crease and said some day Obama would be president.
Timin203 on February 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM
ABO was fighting? How come he’s the WH right now? And spare me “they stayed home because Romney was uninspiring” BS. Where the hell is the fighting then???
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 10, 2013 at 11:36 AM
wait…which one is it? I think this make Brooks’ point…you don’t even know what you are…are you are party? or are you sub-segment of the republican party with a different philosophy?
…..
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM
might want to ask President Mitt what he thinks of that…oh wait….
unseen on February 10, 2013 at 11:39 AM
They’re going to go full on Alinsky against Limbaugh. Just watch. They’ll paint him as the king of the establishment. This should be really interesting.
Key West Reader on February 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM
I suggest you take the log out of your own eye before trying to take the splinter out of Sarah’s eye. Interventionist domestic policy lines the pockets of big businesses and “green” industries. You support interventionist policies that you like hypocrite.
chemman on February 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM
My best thought is that the Tea Party is a self defeating entity. No need for the establishment to cause its demise. I was certainly a fervent believer in it in the beginning, but then it began the quick transformation into a believer in a false argument, that the only issue that is important is the spending, deficit and debt.
They are wrong. Overspending is a moral failing. The fact they are incapable of seeing this is amazing. Especially when they were at the peak of their power when asked what programs and aspects of government should be cut, nothing that was spent on them got a majority of their poll responses. Hypocrites is what I think of when I hear Tea Party. Insincere is another word as well as incapable.
Those Tea Party people we swept into power in 2010? There is a reason they did not stop the spending, because they knew the very same people who voted them into power to supposedly do just that would have voted them out of power if they followed those orders.
astonerii on February 10, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Because all of the black Obamaphone derelicts took a break from doing nothing in particular and turned out for him, principally out of racial affiliation – ie, racism. Your next candidate will likely be wrinkly, white and old.
crrr6 on February 10, 2013 at 11:57 AM
because people like Brooks Rove and Mitt said the tea party was not wanted nor needed. thus another 4 years of Obama. the GOPE would rather lose without the Tea party than win with them and have to share the spoils of victory.
unseen on February 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM
pretty much explains what happened on Nov 6th 2012. Of course the GOPe can’t or won’t except that conclusion.
unseen on February 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM
thanks for explaining how much of an idiot you are.
unseen on February 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM
If they think they can defeat the Tea Party, why can’t they defeat Democrats?
Instead of worrying about picking candidates in Republican primaries, spend that time and money going after Democrats.
We kept hearing about “he pulls a knife, you pull a …” But Democrats hammer Republicans 365 days a year, every year. Yet Republicans (that is, elected Republicans) think they are only supposed to fight every two years for a few weeks in October.
Ann said that if media were honest, Dems would never win elections. True.
That media reality, however, is no excuse for Republican leaders to abdicate their responsibility.
And like Malone asked Ness, one of the first questions for any Republican primary candidate ought to be, “What are you prepared to do?”
EastofEden on February 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »