Those evil GOP elite puppet masters
Commenter Geoffrey Britain wrote this in the thread about recent political polls:
The polls are meaningless because if either Trump or Cruz gains the nomination, the GOP leadership will torpedo their election. Why”¦ because both threaten to turn over the proverbial ”˜apple cart’.
I agree that the establishment is very upset indeed at the prospect of either Trump OR Cruz—and although I originally thought a Trump presidency would upset them more, on reflection I’m not so sure it’s not Cruz who causes the greater fear.
However, I’ve become really tired of people giving so very much power to the evil puppetmasters of the GOP establishment, as though they control everything. For example, if I had a dollar for every person who used to say authoritatively and repetitively that the establishment would engineer Jeb Bush’s nomination, I’d have quite a bit of money (and some of you will probably point out that it’s not over yet and Jeb could somehow still pull it out). I always said that, although Jeb was their favored candidate and they would certainly give him money and support, they would not be successful because Bush has no constituency. He was going to be that bad a candidate.
And although I agree that powerful GOP “elites” don’t like either Trump or Cruz, those elites are not all-powerful. I predict that the GOP “establishment” (I don’t like any of these terms it; maybe I should just say “old guard”) will not be able to torpedo either Trump or Cruz in the general if in fact either manages to win the Republican nomination. Both Trump and Cruz have to be able to appeal to people more than Hillary in order to win, and the elites can hamper them somewhat by giving them less than full support and cooperation. But, as with Jeb, the elites do not control the electorate. Nor do I think those elites would prefer Hillary’s election—if only for selfish reasons; it would diminish their own power for her to win.
I make another prediction, and you can bank on this one: if either Trump or Cruz does turn out to be the Republican nominee, and if that person loses in the general election for president, the angry conservative base will say that the loss is all the fault of the GOP elites who stabbed the GOP nominee in the back.
Another prediction: if the convention ends up being brokered because there’s no clear front-runner according to the primary rules, then that same angry conservative base won’t blame it all on the fact that the voters simply were split. To them, it will always be a conspiracy of the elites, who engineered this in order to take charge of the process and take it out of the hands of the people.
Personally, I’d rather not see a brokered convention, because that will split the party even further (if such a thing be possible), and I believe that would favor the election of Hillary Clinton and quite possibly the permanent victory of the left in this country.
The oddest thing I’ve read this morning is that the Donor Class may decide to leave the Republican Party over this.
Somewhere on …ah
…Breitbart “We’ll have to start a new Republican Party“
“Personally, I’d rather not see a brokered convention, because that . . . would favor the election of Hillary Clinton and quite possibly the permanent victory of the left in this country.”
Personally, I remain persuaded that 2012 was the last shot at averting “the permanent victory of the left in this country”. In 2016, we good guys can and shall fight the good fight, if nothing else than on the minuscule chance that I’m mistaken [been known to happen] and neo and others still think there’s an opportunity. But I think the victory’s already been won.
Long Live Big Brother . . . and all that.
Hooray for Geoffrey Britain’s comment!!!
No matter who the nominee is, the GOP is split asunder. It will require a herculean effort by the nominee to reach out to all the factions to get people to turn out for the election.
The GOPe could be the most helpful by concentrating money and influence on the eight swing states that will be vital for a GOP win. They are: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Nevada (6), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (6), and New Hampshire (4). Hold those states that normally vote GOP and get another 69 (out of 81 total) electoral votes from the eight swing states.
It will not be easy, unless there are more Islamic terror attacks, there is a recession (possibly coming this spring), or something else that further highlights the failure of the Obama policies in the next eleven months.
M J R:
I don’t usually quote trite motivational verse. But you might want to keep this in mind.
“Torpedo” may be too strong a word.
I think G.B. speaks of the disillusioning lessons of the past 5 years.
Particularly:
-The badmouthing by the “Old Guard” of the Tea Party movement, a movement of Constitutional virtue;
-the failures of the “Old Guard” leaders in the House, whence all fiscal measures must originate;
-the failure of the “Old Guard” to use its new Senate majority to dominate the minority in the same way the Dems dominated when in majority;
-the election of Ryan as Speaker;
-the recently-passed Omnibus Budget Bill.
In short, the craven, supine GOP (RNC), which fears being accused of shutting down the government. The party of Rience Priebus, the little man.
I think G.B. is on to something with his recent suggestion that, since the Dems own the blacks, the GOP must do its best to own Hispanics. The “Old Guard” knows conservatives will not go Democratic; we are the “blacks” for the GOP.
What can one conclude? In the apparently immortal words of George Wallace, “There’s not a dime’s difference between the two parties.”
Frog:
Yes, I’ve seen that theory about the GOP thinking it can get the Hispanic vote.
I think there’s no chance of that. And perhaps I flatter the GOP, but I think they know that, for the most part. I think the GOP’s support for increased immigration, visas, and its winking at illegal immigration, etc., are actually attempts to placate the GOP’s financial supporters in business who want those things, not a doomed attempt to wrest the Hispanic vote away from the Democrats.
Frog:
And yes, there’s a lot more than a dime’s difference. Not between all members of the GOP and the Democrats, of course. But between some, and the more of those that voters can elect, the more the difference will become apparent and will ultimately be reflected in the leadership of the party.
And there’s a big difference on the local level, for the most part, between Democratic governors and state legislators and Republican governors and state legislators.
I have heard this “no difference” argument for many many years. I think it’s absurd. There’s a difference in everything BUT the leadership in Congress. There would have been a huge difference in Romney vs. Obama (particularly in foreign policy, and executive orders on immigration), and if you don’t think so, I think you’re out of touch with reality.
Apparently the WSJ/NBC has polling evidence for Trump’s appeal to Democrats. Rush Limbaugh quoted a few ‘graphs from their story, and says that he polls 34% in strongly minority districts…in the South!
Now, gaining added Dems in the South may not translate to any greater appeal in Democrat states. But, more importantly, can it work in the crucial swing states?
Finally, I heard radio reports of Cruz matching Hillary in likability, and Trump being close to Hillary in unlikability….
(I’m searching to details to confirm).
But back to the WSJ polling story, since such evidence bears strongly on our Doubting Thomas’ host. Rush introduces, here: “The Trump coalition happens to be made up of people that the Republican Party claims it wants to be. The Republican Party claims it doesn’t like its base and wants to broaden the base to include blue-collar, Hispanic, independents, women, minorities, and that’s who make up the Trump support base right now.”
RUSH continues his commentary: “Anyway, the point of all this is, the Wall Street Journal has done some investigation of its own deep polling data, and they have found that the Trump base of support is all over the place.
“The Drive-Bys will not admit a potential erosion in their base support. The Republicans won’t admit that Trump has finally hit the holy grail they’ve been seeking. But Trump is very strong in minority districts in the South. We just had a caller who made the point that 30 to 35% of the African-American people he works with support Trump, and the NBC poll internal data suggests that that’s actual data, not anecdotal.
“Trump is also very strong with low income, lesser educated working people which used to be owned by the Democrats. The south is where the majority of delegates will be decided early in the Republican primaries, these SEC primaries.
“The point that I’m making here is that Trump’s support base is entirely unconventional.
“The Drive-Bys [the MSM] have their conception of it, the Republican Party has their conception of it, and they’re all wrong, and neither of them, when they’re faced with the reality, want to admit the coalition that Trump’s been able to put together. It’s all over the place.”
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/12/22/more_evidence_of_the_trump_effect
If our host is confused and resists the idea of Trumps broad appeal, she’s far from alone.
This may, indeed, be a topsy-turvy election, mediated by outsized need to finally get certain neglected matter right.
Or – to those who cannot fathom (or stomach) Trumpiness – completely wrong.
Orson:
Do you have a link to that WSJ poll?
The poll I discussed yesterday yesterday directly reported on Democratic support for Trump, and it was at 11%, which is less than Republican support for Hillary (14%).
34% support among Republicans in heavily minority areas of the South says nothing about Democratic support or about minority support. These are Republicans, not Democrats, and for all we know they may be mostly white, as well.
I’d like to see the poll, because I’m interested in seeing exactly what it says.
If Rush really said that “Hispanic, independents, women, minorities” are Trump’s base, that contradicts every single poll on the subject I’ve ever seen. He does worse with those groups than the other Republican frontrunners (Cruz, Rubio, Christie, Carson).
I felt a lot better about Cruz back several months ago when I was the only one I knew who was supportive of him.
Looks like he has gained momentum before there is even a primary vote.
Leads me to wonder how this happened.
Guess Bush is just so feeble and pathetic that non-Trump folks are migrating to Cruz by default.
DNW:
If I’m any example, I always liked Cruz, but he wasn’t my frontrunner. Originally I was for Walker; he dropped out early. Then I liked Fiorina, but she failed to gain traction and has faded. Right now, Cruz is one of my favorites, perhaps my favorite at the moment.
neo-neocon, 5:10 pm — “I don’t usually quote trite motivational verse. But you might want to keep this in mind.”
EXERPT (first verse):
If you think you are beaten, you are;
If you think you dare not, you don’t.
If you’d like to win, but you think you can’t,
It is almost a cinch that you won’t.
END EXCERPT
neo-neocon, 5:13 pm — “Yes, I’ve seen that theory about the GOP thinking it can get the Hispanic vote. I think there’s no chance of that. And perhaps I flatter the GOP, but I think they known that.”
[ A H E M ]
neo, with all respect — and you *know* there’s an *awful* lot there — I was surprised to the see latter comment, having just read the former comment (and link).
I think fighting the good fight can be very consistent with thinking the victory’s already been won by the left. I think “the fight” is very moral and principled, and *has* to be maintained as a subversive action by us, the remnant, for our progeny. We need to keep the ideas alive for as many generations as that may take.
Unfortunately, some of our descendants in the remnant will go over to the dark side, as children have a way of having minds of their own, but some on the statist side may also come over to our (descendants’) side. And the struggle will go on.
I will not pacify myself with the bland and baseless assurance that someday, liberty freedom will win out. If it does, I’m not convinced how long that victory might last, given how we here right now have so royally screwed (“schlonged”?) things up.
But I digress. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead — not for the 2016 battle, but for our progeny, for the remnant.
Orson:
Well, I can’t find the longer report on that WSJ poll that Rush Limbaugh discussed, but I found the shorter WSJ article that discussed it, and as I suspected, it says nothing about minorities supporting Trump and nothing about Democrats supporting Trump. It only speaks about Trump having 34% support from Republicans in those districts. We can’t infer anything about minority or Democrat support or lack of support for Trump from that.
As I already said, in the polls I’ve seen (and I’ve seen a lot of them) Trump has less support from women and black voters (haven’t seen one about Hispanic voters) then Cruz, Rubio, Christie, and Carson.
YES, neo – the source source for the poll wasembeded at Rush, and it is HERE
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/12/22/more_evidence_of_the_trump_effect
Yes, I understand how contrary the claim is to, not just conventional wisdom, but evidence as well….
But since we could all use some Jolly fun for Christmas and the New Year’s holiday, how about this consumate visual summary of the past two months?
THIS ONE had me rolling on the floor laughing out loud!
http://i67.tinypic.com/2ic65vn.jpg
well before I could THINK about it!
Vicious? Or revealing Truth?
OOPS! (SORRY wrong first LINK)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/12/21/some-strong-signals-for-donald-trump-in-the-south/
M J R:
Well, it was your final sentence that made me think perhaps you had given up: “Long Live Big Brother . . . and all that.”
Glad to hear you haven’t.
As for the GOP and Hispanics, I actually think that with enough time, some Hispanic voters could come around to the GOP. But not because the GOP supports more visas or winks at illegal immigration; the Democrats will always win on that score. No, I think that many Hispanic voters realize that illegal immigration harms them, and policies that hurt business harm them, too, and that could bring some of them to the GOP side, ultimately.
Orson:
Yes, I already discussed that article here.
What I’m looking for is the longer report of the poll itself; the data. My guess is that the poll didn’t tap into anything relevant to Trump support among Democrats or minorities.
Yeah, there are plenty of good people in the Republican field, but not so much obvious presidential timber. The key word being “obvious” from my point of view.
If there were only one or two issues to consider, if the international situation were not critical, if collectedness and an ability to think and to analyze on one’s feet were not of almost transcendent importance, then any number of them might well serve. Though the bluster of a couple of the conservative favorites disappoints me …
Cruze, to this point, and despite certain flaws in experience and the record, has demonstrated the personal balance that I hope will not be, but which I expect may be, critical.
He’s very smart, has announced principles, seems relatively unflappable, and at least in intellectual terms, ought to be able to handle any Democrat in debate.
Whether that would count for anything with the present electorate, is of course another matter.
As I said very early on, if I could fashion and then appoint a President to suit, I’d take the raw material of Romney, make a number of significant adjustments, and stick him in office.
Here’s a fun link from 538:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/
Can the ‘pubs take the White House? Lots of interesting scenarios.
Neo: I am apparently on your short list. I hoped it would be clear I was referring to the Inside Beltway parties, as was George Wallace, who was running for President, IIRC. Note my “(RNC)”.
The Inside-The-Beltway GOP has not meaningfully distinguished itself in response to 2010ff election results, and that observation has been around for a while. I detailed some complaints, admittedly not original.
It is indeed somewhat different out in the States, but that has not carried into DC in any major way, as best I can tell. The establishment GOP in DC is ineffectual in its “opposition.”
I hope you’re not blowing a horn for Ryan or McConnell, even by implication.
I was there at the early stages of a local Tea Party in a large Texas city, and I clearly recall those of our strategy sessions about political party gamesmanship. Our inclination, after much discussion, was to work on taking over the GOP from the inside, locally and from the ground up … and if the people we were active in electing to larger office turned around and shat all over our principles of fiscal responsibility, strict constitutionality and free markets — well, we would just work for others in future, until they did as their constituents asked.
I also recall that in the early days, the local GOP was all about the Tea Party – in the innocent assumption that we were a brand new pony of contributors and volunteers, all bridled and saddled and ready for the establishment GOP to ride. Ha. Ha.
No, I think there will be a considerable accounting in the next few years. And the establishment GOP will be sadly the worse for wear after it.
My response to neo in the prior thread in which I originally made that comment:
I personally have never believed nor implied that “the evil puppetmasters of the GOP establishment” control everything. That type of control, in a society as complex as ours is IMO ludicrous. But just as a large ship is susceptible to the movement of a comparatively small rudder, so too does the GOP establishment, i.e. its politicians and big donors, wield inordinate influence.
On another note, stereotyping all of Trump’s support as unthinking knee jerk rejection of the RINO GOP is IMO, inaccurate. That Trump is IMO, an egotistical bore changes not a whit that he is right in his gut reactions to what is happening in America.
Apparently, Trump is that rarest of birds, a wealthy capitalist who senses not only that disaster awaits America upon its current path but also that wealthy capitalists will be the first to be fed to the alligators.
Sgt. Mom– Our local Tea Party had the same exact experience and it was pretty obvious that the problem was lack of money. Let’s face it, The GOPe has a hundred times as much money as us Tea Partiers will ever be able to raise. We can go door to door and put up signs all we want, but in the end, it just doesn’t matter.
I think the Republican nominee is more likely than not to win the Presidency next year. By then, it will have been eight long years of Obama, and I sense that the country is in the mood for a change. Electing Hillary would essentially be a third term for Obama. Plus, there are more things that can go wrong for the Democrats and Hillary between now and next November.
“on reflection I’m not so sure it’s not Cruz who causes the greater fear”
Had not thought about this, but yes, I think, Neo, that you are correct.
There seem to be a number among us here like Sgt. Mom, me included, who were Tea Party enthusiasts, workers and donors. Meetings, city council hearings, etc., all very civil.
Our stories are very similar. Being shat upon is disillusioning.
Our self-proclaimed “conservative” GOP representative has the most liberal voting record of any Republican in the state. He gets re-elected.
I assume that when people use the pejorative, establishment, they are speaking of the people who contribute their money, and volunteer their time to get folks elected; as well as the folks who actually enter the arena election after election.
Trump is a disaster in the making. Cruz is a total unknown as far as leading anything; although he is certainly a better choice than Trump.
I still have confidence in some of the establishment pols, if they ever have actual control of the government.
“I think the Republican nominee is more likely than not to win the Presidency next year. By then, it will have been eight long years of Obama, and I sense that the country is in the mood for a change.” Yankee Republican
The consistent 45-50% approval rating that Obama has enjoyed argues otherwise. The critical difference between eight years of Bush and Obama is the mass media disapproval of Bush and approval of Obama. The American public was literally ‘conditioned’ to view Bush as a ‘warmonger’ and has been conditioned to view Obama as a President obstructed by a corrupt Republican Congress.
Those in approval of Trump or Cruz are in a mood for change.
Obviously those inclined to vote for Hillary want continuation of the status quo. And those who would instead vote for Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Pataki, etc. also want continuation of the status quo. They just want it under new ‘management’.
At this point, my own sense is that Hillary will win by a slim margin. Unless, in the face of more Islamic terrorist attacks, the Republican candidate is able to persuade enough independents and LIVs that the democrat leadership is a bunch of modern day Chamberlains.
To do that will require a Cruz that adopts a “take no prisoners” attitude. Trump has the right attitude regarding the Left’s “narrative” but lacks the needed political savvy.
Cruz has an impressive record, look it up yourselves. Unlike bho he is not the smartest person to walk into any room on the planet; he is just in the 99th percentile in any room on the planet.
Geoffrey Britain: “The critical difference between eight years of Bush and Obama is the mass media disapproval of Bush and approval of Obama. The American public was literally ‘conditioned’ to view Bush as a ‘warmonger’ and has been conditioned to view Obama as a President obstructed by a corrupt Republican Congress.”
Just so. No matter who of the Republicans becomes President he/she will be savaged by the MSM just as Bush was. It is probably the key fact in trying to change course from statism to smaller, more effective government. The only solution I see is for people like the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, and other billionaire’s to get into media. Buy a flagship TV station or newspaper or a big movie studio. Start cranking out entertaining “content” that provides a conservative message. You have to fight fire with fire. And the battle ground is really over what the citizens are reading or viewing. As it is, it’s amazing that there is a conservative movement at all.
I am a TEA Party member. In a deep blue state. In this state we have little effect on national politics, especially on the primaries. We have an “open” primary. Which means you can vote for anyone of any party, no matter your true affiliation. The GOP nominee in this state will be the one the Dems most want to run against, because they will cross the line and vote in large enough numbers to select that person.
Surprisingly, we have had quite a lot of success at the state level. In spite of having a closet Communist as governor, our legislature has a slight Republican majority. Because of the way appropriations work in the state, the Rs have been able to produce reasonable budgets with no new taxes. It hasn’t been easy. The line is very hard to hold and our governor is threatening executive actions (ala Obama, his hero), but so far, they are only threats.
I have broken with the national TEA Party movement because they have been taken over to a great extent by social conservatives. They still favor small government and low taxes but are fighting all the social causes as well, which gets them spread too thin over too many issues, IMO.
It may often seem like the work you do, the money you donate, and the e-mails/phone calls are not making any progress. But when I saw our legislature hold the line on the budget this year, I knew it was a hard won victory obtained by grass roots efforts. Unfortunately, we can never rest on our laurels. The statists have an ever growing list of things they want the government to do.
Frog:
“Our stories are very similar. Being shat upon is disillusioning.”
If the Tea Party was “shat upon” it’s because the Tea Party reneged on their promise to the GOP.
What I see in your stories is the GOP hope that the Tea Party movement would provide the proselytizing, spreading, populist activist movement urgently needed to compete against the Left’s zealous, relentless Gramscian march that has been steadily transforming the social cultural/political landscape to the Democrats’ advantage, by which process the Left has also taken over the Democrats.
Instead, as described in your similar experiences, as soon as the GOP embraced the Tea Party, the Tea Party promptly reneged on their end of the bargain by dropping their activist contribution while still demanding the GOP accede to the Tea Party, yet without providing the promised activist partner who would compete against the Left in all the influential social areas beyond the GOP’s electoral-political reach.
In other words, whereas Left activists have paid for their access, privileges, and influence with the Democrats by which leftists have usurped ‘mainstream’ liberals, the Tea Party demanded the same kind of access, privileges, and influence with the GOP but without making the same kind of payment.
When the GOP opened their doors and welcomed the Tea Party as urgently needed Right activists, the Tea Party instead settled into the GOP as querulous squatters who thereafter refused to reach beyond electoral politics.
M J R:
“In 2016, we good guys can and shall fight the good fight”
Politics are downstream of culture. Culture is a product of activism.
Until you commit collectively and fully to an activist movement that competes head-on against the Left across the social cultural/political spectrum – the kind of activist movement that the Tea Party originally promised and should have continued to grow to save America – then you have not really begun to “fight the good fight” at all.
Participatory politics precede and subsume electoral politics.
Geoffrey Britain:
Until you pointed it out, I hadn’t seen that other response from you in that thread, which clarified what you were referring to.
However, although you apparently are NOT of the “the elites are the evil puppetmasters” crew (as I had originally but erroneously thought), it is definitely a school of thought to which a significant number of conservatives ascribe.
I have noticed, also, that Trump (whom, as you know, I do not support) has a marked ability to state some true things that other politicians don’t say directly.
The elite puppet masters are the currently elected representatives, their staffs, the NRC and the lobbyist industry. As Peter Schweizer documents in “Extortion”, they have a perfectly legal set of schemes to extort money from large donors. What they don’t want is someone who is not in that club taking the presidency and working against them. That would be Trump and possibly Cruz. The rest are acceptable members of the club, who will talk conservative to get elected, and then produce a horror like the omnibus bill.
Look at Speaker Paul Ryan. He was Romney’s VP pick and a conservative darling. Look what he did, working with Obama and Pelosi to ram that omnibus bill through.
The good news is that there are limits on the control they exert. People don’t like being conned and they are taking it out on regular politicians. The vessel for their anger is someone who paid dues to the club, but is now running against the club. If he fails, then Cruz may become that vessel.
If you read “Extortion”, you will understand that the club would rather see Hillary elected than Trump or Cruz. The money will carry on flowing and they can blame Hillary for whatever peeves the saps who voted for them.
neo,
Other politicians do not speak directly to the truths that Trump clumsily exposes because they are politically savvy enough to see the political and cultural minefields but lack the skill to navigate those minefields.
They are examples to which the following quote refers; “If you can’t explain what you’re doing and why you’re doing it to any intelligent layman, that really means that you don’t understand it yourself.” Allan Bromley, former President of the American Physical Society
Besides a certain native level of articulation, explaining complex issues in terms laymen easily understand takes years of deep contemplation upon the issues. Thomas Sowell is an example of such a person. Fiorina has it as well, though she’s a work in progress, especially regarding Islam.
Geoffrey Britain:
I have long been impressed by Sowell’s ability to do that. His writing is so graceful, clear, and deceptively simple in the way it crystallizes complex thoughts so that they are understandable.
Fiorina has the ability to do this also, seemingly ad lib (although perhaps it’s all more prepared than it sounds). That is one of the things I really like about her.
Frog:
No, not blowing any horns for Ryan or McConnell.
All of you down on Trump need to do David Horowitz the courtesy of reading his position today on Trump.
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/horowitz-donald-trump-and-american-future
An interesting piece in the Atlantic on the turmoil in in the GOP. It sort of dribbles out inconclusively, but it is worth the read.
Getting things done. Space-X is getting things done. That cost billions. Trump solved this problem for free:
The back-story is that he saw where the problem was – the refrigeration expert from Florida was doing it all wrong – and he called in an expert from a Canadian hockey team. Then he had to manage a massive, continuous concrete pour. They had concrete trucks backed into Harlem.
The point of this tale is that Trump had no expertise in building a large outdoor ice-skating rink. He just knew how to find the expertise and manage it and he bet his reputation on it.
That’s executive prowess of the first order.
In my opinion, Frog and PatD have made a good case for Trump. While I favor Ted Cruz I do appreciate the massive contribution Trump has made to the debate.
Wow, Phyllis Schlafly!! just came out and endorsed Trump. She’s a staunch conservative (Eagle Forum) going back to Goldwater!
Schlafly is saying Trump is the last, best hope for America.
No matter how much money elites pour into the campaign, you’re alone when you walk into that voting booth.
“Angry Conservative”? Not “Angry Elites” Hmmm. Did the “white Male” part get edited out on the second read?
> Both Trump and Cruz have to be able to appeal to people more than Hillary in order to win, and the elites can hamper them somewhat by giving them less than full support and cooperation.
Maybe we anti-GOPe folks do tend to overstate our case at times, but I think you’re overstating yours as well, Ms. Neo. Nobody is ascribing supernatural powers to the GOPe. But, yes, the intentions are there, and they would rather go down with a Jeb Bush than win with a Trump or Cruz.
And I agree Cruz is their worst nightmare. Ronald Reagan, for some reason, left the GOP establishment intact, despite the hurdles they had thrown in his path during two presidential campaigns. Cruz, I think, would clean some serious house.
> the angry conservative base will say that the loss is all the fault of the GOP elites who stabbed the GOP nominee in the back.
You say that as if the GOPe has no history of doing just that. E.g., Christine O’Donnell. Whatever you think about her, she had won the Republican nomination for Senate in Delaware, playing by the rules, and was at the very least entitled to the GOP’s implicit support. Then Karl Rove, yes, torpedoed her on Fox News and did her candidacy more damage than the Democrats could have done, all the while saying “She can’t win.” We’ll never know if she could have won without Rove ruining her chances all by himself. But she sure couldn’t beat the Team Democrats/Rove/News media.
If you don’t believe the establishment still has power, I have 2 words to say to you, Thad Cochrane. He wouldn’t be Senator without establishment shenanigans in Mississippi.
To expand on Reformed Trombonist’s point, and note further on how the GOPe will stab you in the back if you aren’t one of the inner circle:
Hey, remember 2010 when Alaskan Joe Miller won the Republican primary to become a candidate for Senate? Who did the GOP leadership line up behind but write-in “independent” Lisa Murkowski?
Remember then too when Christine O’Donnell defeated Mike Castle in the primary to become a Senate candidate? How much RNC support did Co’D get, again?
Remember when Tim Scott primaried and won against the GOP’s (KKK’s?) Strom Thurmond’s son-and-heir Paul Thurmond? Remember how much support the black Southern Republican got from the northern “elites” of the the party in the general?
How ’bout a couple years later when Deb Fisher won a Republican primary in Nebraska the the GOP party elites preferred Democratic retread (but “named” and former Senator and presidential candidate) Bob Kerrey.
Hey, remember David Dewhurst? The guy the Republicans liked better than Ted Cruz, who being defeated ran AGAIN almost immediately for Lt Governor, (being re-defeated, in the primary run-off by a wholly imperfect candidate whose big virtue was the LACK of name and connections)
Then there’s Kansas, where the Democrat Taylor WITHDREW FROM THE RACE in a deal with the Republicans supporting a long-shot 4th party challenger, Orman, to help the bi-partisan effort to re-elect incumbent Republican Pat Roberts over the petition-supported Tea Party challenger Milton Wolf.
In general, the Republican party has opposed, rather than supported, any efforts to retard the progress of nepotism, incumbency, and the ordinary citizen’s participation in fair, free, and open elections run according to long-established rules.
27 Melcher – I’ll add a few more to the list.
Allen West was inconvenient and redistricted out by the FL GOP and thus we have Alan Grayson back.
Ken Cuccinelli didn’t play ball and got zero support.
How much support did crazy Tea Partier Sharron Angle get running against Harry Reid?
And of course, the cherry on top – Chris McDaniel.
H/T http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/12/ben-carson-will-not-play-republican.html#c8318697109232807904
And yes, I fully believe that they would rather lose to Hillary, then win with an ‘outsider’. In their view at the end of the day, she’s still “one of us”, and the ‘outsiders’ aren’t.
Richard Lugar’s (who couldn’t bother to maintain a home in Indiana) primary defeat by Richard Mourdock didn’t help cement fond relations between the WashingtonPermaFrosties and the constituents in the hinterlands either — so Indiana ends up with Democrat Sen. Joe Donnelly. Peachy.
“To them, it will always be a conspiracy of the elites, who engineered this in order to take charge of the process and take it out of the hands of the people.”
The Dems still see red over the 1990 Bush election. They actually still believe the “Republican Supreme Court” threw the election. Don’t confuse them with the actual facts of the case, facts are immaterial to them.
You may be right Neo, and perhaps the Conservatives will blame a conspiracy on the loss. Perhaps they fail to understand that over the course of 40 yrs, it appears the country has gone from a nation of worker ants with a “Can Do” approach to a nation of grasshoppers with a “Why Bother” view. What the future hold only God knows for sure.
Cloudbuster Says:
December 23rd, 2015 at 5:34 am
No matter how much money elites pour into the campaign, you’re alone when you walk into that voting booth.
%%%%
I did not know that.
I now have it on a Post-it note.
Thanks.
Eric:
“When the GOP opened their doors and welcomed the Tea Party” is hysterically absurd and funny. Thanks for the laugh!
parker Says:
December 22nd, 2015 at 10:06 pm
Cruz has an impressive record, look it up yourselves. Unlike bho he is not the smartest person to walk into any room on the planet; he is just in the 99th percentile in any room on the planet.
It amuses me when leftists think their politics prove that they are smart, and that those on the right are knuckle dragging idiots. They mock the Republican candidates as stupid. Rand Paul is an eye surgeon. Ben Carson is a neurosurgeon. Alan Dershowitz said that Ted Cruz was the smartest student he’s ever had at Harvard Law.
Perhaps the left has be so enamored of affirmative action and participation trophies that they’ve lost the ability to determine who is smart and who is stupid.
Just as an aside, I wonder if any of the candidates have any hobbies besides politics.
Prediction: Neo will ignore the evidence piled up in the comments about the GOP establishment elites stabbing conservatives in the back.
the elites can hamper them somewhat by giving them less than full support and cooperation.
If either Trump or Cruz is the nominee sometime this summer some eminence gres with “impecable conservative credentials” will, “with great sadness”, find he has to run 3rd party as the “real Republican in this race”.
This will give the Old Guard a way to vote against Trump without openly supporting Hillary.I think this was originally the genesis of the John Anderson campaign in 1980. Reagan, who the establishment didn’t want, neutured this by selecting Bush as his VP and thus spilting the Old Guard. The Old Guard then left Anderson to swing in the wind.
Lindsey Grahamn, with his role as an impeachment procecuter against Clinton, is the kind of centrist Old Guard that has the “impecable conservative credentials” they’ll want.
Truth Unites:
Right. I’m well-known for ignoring evidence and ignoring comments.
Is your name ironic?
Oh, and by the way: I never claimed the GOP doesn’t try to sabotage certain candidates, in particular by not supporting them very much. In fact, if Trump were to be the nominee (or Cruz), I believe they might do just that (as I already stated in the post). The question is whether it would account for a loss by either Trump or Cruz. I think that Trump (and perhaps Cruz; not sure about that one) could definitely lose, even if he did have the full support of the GOP (although he wouldn’t have it). I think Trump is on track to lose to Clinton, were he to be nominated, and I base that on several things, including polls.
It could change, of course, over time.
bflat879; Reformed Trombonist:
Of course they have power.
My point is that their power is limited, not that they don’t sometimes succeed in sabotage, particularly in more local elections. Their power seems to have been very limited so far with Jeb Bush, compared to many predictions on blogs about how they would engineer his nomination.
Good column by Brett Stevens addressed to some of your posters, Neo:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lets-elect-hillary-now-1450742854
I don’t know if you folks have talk about Cruz’s varied experience. There’s a good article at pjmedia about his being a “consensus builder” while at the FTC:
“What No One Seems to Know About Ted Cruz’s Past.”
https://pjmedia.com/blog/what-no-one-seems-to-know-about-ted-cruzs-past
Why is the institutional Republican Party afraid to take a hard stance on immigration?
Is it because they are afraid of alienating Hispanic voters?
Is it is because influential businesses want a continuing supply of cheap immigrant and illegal immigrant labor?
Is it because they are afraid of being smeared as racists in mass media?
Is it because they flinch at the thought of mass deportation?
Is it because of “Ellis Island sentimentality” about America as a “nation of immigrants”, sympathy for apparently deserving immigrants, and echoes of the reflexive Jewish aversion to immigration restriction?
Yes. All of those reasons apply.
It is going to be very hard to overcome a feeling that has so many different deep roots.
Perhaps the left has be so enamored of affirmative action and participation trophies that they’ve lost the ability to determine who is smart and who is stupid.
They never did have that ability, because to “determine” something requires judgement. And judgment is called discrimination in the Left’s dogma.