How The GOP Plans To Crush The Tea Party Revolt

talkingpointsmemo.com ^ | 2/11/14 | Daniel Strauss

[cotton1706]

After House Republicans conceded on Tuesday that they would bring a debt ceiling bill to the floor for a vote without attaching policy concessions, the tea party seemed in open revolt, calling for the replacement of Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). Meanwhile, incumbent Republican senators have quietly been working behind the scenes to cut off their funding sources.

"I've been told by a number of donors to our 'super PAC' that they've received calls from senior Republican senators," FreedomWorks President and CEO Matt Kibbe told The New York Times. Those donors would then say to FreedomWorks, per Kibbe, that "'I can't give to you because I've been told I won't have access to Republican leadership.'"

It was a sentiment echoed by The Madison Project's policy director Daniel Horowitz to TPM on Tuesday: "It’s almost as if McConnell and his allies are acting like the IRS with intimidation."

When asked if they'd experienced a similar phenomenon to FredomWorks, Horowitz replied, "I'm sure they tried. Our model never relied upon big donors who are well connected to the D.C. political establishment."

Conservative groups have thrown a lot at the establishment in return. On Tuesday, after every single attempt to exact policy concessions from Democrats over the debt ceiling, conservative groups Club For Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund immediately rallied their supporters.

"These leaders have telegraphed weakness to the Democrats and sabotaged conservative efforts so many times that Republicans now have no leverage. There's only one solution," SCF Executive Director Matt Hoskins wrote in an email to supporters. "John Boehner must be replaced as Speaker of the House."

[bestintxas]

“John Cornyn will be keynote speaker at the Brazoria County Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner on February 22. Notice sent out by Mary Kathryn Pickle, Brazoria County Republican Party, Precinct 2 Chair. Per Mary, “While some may feel he (Cornyn) is a bit out of sync, he is considered to be a solid conservative”.

Looks like Cornyn is pulling out all the stops. Last year Patterson was speaker and while announcing his candidacy for Lt. Governor included expanding guest worker program as one of his major goals.

Looks like the Brazoria County Republican Party is wandering over to the dark side. Don’t plan on attending and hope lots of others choose to sit this one out.”

I wish Ted Cruz would endorse either Stockman or Stoval.
He is wildly more popular in Texas than Cornyn, and this would sway a lot of people like Palin does when she endorses.

Ted went so far as to choosing NOT to endorse Cornyn, but we could use the all-in approach he is capable of.

[LibLieSlayer]

I may vote for republicans but I only give to CONSERVATIVES and I am NOT a republican.

[FatherFig1o155]

They want ‘scorched earth’, they got it.

I'm there, too. It's time to starve the establishment before they starve us of our nation's future.

[Grams A]

I can understand why Cruz isn’t endorsing anyone for the Senate. The fact that he did not endorse Cornyn speaks volumes, at least to me, but Republicans in Texas have their own set of issues and some counties like Brazoria have their own set of rules for who will and who won’t be elected to County offices.

I noticed at the Lincoln dinner last year everyone there was either a candidate, an elected official or connected to someone’s campaign. One of our newly elected officials who is a friend of mine said they are “tighter than thieves and harder to break in to than Fort Knox but once you’re in, it’s for life”.

Cruz did give a shout out to Ken Paxton who is my choice for AG at this point in time, although Dan Branch is certainly spending a whole lot of money on TV ads.

Going to be an interesting election for Texas for sure.

[workerbee]

Cue the chorus of “But ANY R is better than a D! Once the Repubs get the Senate, things will improve! It’s the lesser of two evils! If you don’t vote for a RINO you are voting for a D!”

Cry two tears in a bucket. No votes for GOP-e, ever again.

[tomkat]

On our feet, FRiend, never on our knees !

[Politicalkiddo]

Closet Democrats.

[VRWC For Truth]

Only the stoopid party attacks their base. Look forward to all the new seats in November. The Gelded OLD Pansies are fools.

[Thorliveshere]

Are you SURE? Are you certain that Marxists haven’t infiltrated the party and taken over? Communists promised they would do this, and I think their plan has come to fruition.

[Joe Boucher]

Tea party is not interested in go along get along everyone Is making money so don’t rock the boat.
This seems to be Boehner and mitch’s way.
Tea party wants to cut federal spending by about 80 percent or about the amount of worthlessness created by said federal worthless gub mint

[jjsheridan5]

Cue the chorus of “But ANY R is better than a D! Once the Repubs get the Senate, things will improve! It’s the lesser of two evils! If you don’t vote for a RINO you are voting for a D!”

I am still planning on voting for the lesser of two evils. What has changed is that it has become abundantly clear that the greater of two evils is usually the GOP-e candidate. The democrat just provides a bad voting record. The GOP-e candidate will provide a slightly better voting record, but also can be counted on to do everything in their considerable power to neuter opposition to liberalism, something a democrat can only dream of doing.

[Crusher138]

Let me explain this for those of you who are getting all self-righteous about this or that candidate.

IN THE PRIMARIES you vote for the candidate that most fulfills your vision of the perfect candidate. If he is a good candidate, with good organization and backing, he will win. If he doesn’t have good organization or backing, he wasn’t that good of a candidate. You might have liked him, but you also might like liver and onions. Your taste/judgement just might be flawed.

IN THE GENERAL ELECTION you vote for the candidate that is CLOSEST to your ideal. Staying home because your candidate didn’t make it out of the primary means that you are helping the candidate you REALLY don’t like. The party will not go “shucks, darn, we should have gone with Candidate B instead of Candidate A.” They will see that the more liberal candidate won, so they obviously need a more liberal candidate themselves the next time around, since the more conservative candidate got such little support.

It may be flawed, but it is reality.

[jjsheridan5]

Let me explain this for those of you who are getting all self-righteous about this or that candidate.

Let me explain this to those of you who are too dim-witted to understand why many of us are done with the GOP-e, forever (hint: it has nothing to do with self-righteousness, a characterization that applies more to those who think, incorrectly, that they are smart in voting for a Republican solely because they have an "R" next to their name). Just because candidate R is marginally less liberal than candidate D, this does not make him automatically the lesser of two evils. Liberal Republicans are in a position to do far more harm to conservatism (and therefore this country), than are Democrats. Liberal Republicans (who detest conservatism with a passion that is often greater than that of Democrats) are in a position to prevent a cohesive opposition party to emerge. This is something that Democrats simply cannot do, but liberal/anti-conservative Republicans can. They can tarnish conservatives and conservatism in a way that Democrats can't, they can muddy the conservative message in a way that Democrats can't, and they can sabotage conservative Republicans in a way that Democrats can't. While the primary is obviously the best place to rid the political world of these vermin, it is not the only place. Put either way, the situation is quite simple: as long as the McCains, McConnells, Cornyn's, Grahams, are in reasonably powerful positions within the Republican party, there will be no effective opposition to liberalism. To vote for any of those in the general election, is to vote for the elimination of any cohesive opposition to liberalism.

We would be much better off with a party that occupied 30% of the house/senate, but was cohesive, united, committed, agile, and most importantly effective, than we are with 50%, but are completely (almost comically) ineffective, and populated by people who are actively opposed to conservatism. The former can lead to eventual success. History is full of examples of relatively small political movements that, because they are cohesive, committed, and effective, are ultimately successful. The latter, of which you approve, inevitably leads to failure, and a long slide into the oblivion which is full-blown socialism. That, as you say, is the reality.

[Crusher138]

Let me explain this to those of you who are too dim-witted to understand why many of us are done with the GOP-e

Democrats long ago discovered the wisdom of incremental change. They knew that if they had said in the 70's or 80's that they were in favor of gay marriage, they wouldn't win an election. They didn't insist on electing the most left leaning candidate, just the most left leaning that stood a chance of winning.

They brought people over to their agenda bit by bit. They may have wanted Jerry Brown for President, but they were wise enough not to put him on the national ticket. With their allies in the press and education system, they have effectively boiled the frog, to a point that they pass items that would have been political suicide 30 or 40 years ago.

We are not going be able to yank the pendulum back all at once. Instead, we need candidates who agree with us as much as they can and still get elected. Just like they did with liberal policies, the public will accept conservative policies bit by bit.

Keep your eyes on the prize. Wars can be won by winning many small battles.

[Dead Corpse]

Um... GOP? This is your last chance at a “peaceful” resolution to what is ailing our Country.

You do get that don’t you? That folks like me are only on a leash because everyone is saying “give the system one last chance to work!”

If this fall doesn’t change things, my next votes may well be via .50BMG APIT...

[jjsheridan5]

Keep your eyes on the prize. Wars can be won by winning many small battles.

Wars also can't be won when a sizable portion of your own troops are rooting for the enemy, and stabbing you in the back at every opportunity. The parallel to the democrat party success is apples and oranges. The Democrats have become a fully unified, cohesive, and effective party (it has cost them slightly in the house and senate, since it meant that non-liberal democrats have no home in that party, but it has been well worth it, from their vantage point). A Republican party made up of conservatives, and those who despise them, has zero chance to win any but the most trivial of battles.

Get rid of the Republicans who actively oppose and betray conservatives, and maybe we can start winning the small battles we need to win. Keep them in the party, because it makes the R/D split look better on paper, and watch the losses pile up, and watch the government expand without so much as a speed-bump.

[firebrand]

It’s a turf war. They don’t care about the ideas involved. They have just reverted to their lizard brains. Us against them, the age-old favorite human endeavor.

[firebrand]

This is true. Have just been reading about the Nixon years. Same old story. Sounds just like today. Nixon knew how to hunt where the ducks are, but the back story is the same.