Skip to comments.(Vanity) A Closer Look at the Tea Party Losses
Posted on 11/03/2010 3:27:13 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
In a piece earlier this morning An Insomniac's Recap of the Elections, I wrote a brief analysis of the Nov. 2010 elections. During the ensuing discussion, freeper LS came up with a *very* important point which has been lost in the Palin-Rove pissing match by proxy.
The relevant quote is:
Some good points. I think in DE, CA, AK, and possibly CA, the races were NOT sufficiently nationalized. The feeling was to take it local, so O'Donnell kept talking about DE. Well, the House races for the most part were nationalized. And it showed.
So the first rule of successful waves is, capture the mood of the electorate and apply it to your race. If (as this time) the electorate is in a "throw all the bums out" mood, nationalize your race. If things are going well, play defense with your incumbents, and bask in the reflected glory of things going well; if you are challenging, pull a JFK and say "I think we can do even better."
One of the main differences between the fortunes of the conservatives / Establishment types and their fortunes has to do, not just with "did Rove stab us in the back" (though he did) or "did an unpolished candidate make it to the national stage" (which they did).
The question is, to what extent was the race nationalized, and to what extent was the race made to be about the individual?
Look at the most contentious races: Delaware, Alaska, Colorado, Arizona.
In all of these Senate races, the Establishment did not solidly back the Tea Party. But more importantly, the Establishment did NOT just sit back and let the candidate "wither on the vine" (to borrow an old phrase which got Newt Gingrich in trouble when it was misquoted).
Instead, the Establishment started problems by badmouthing the candidate -- thereby shouting out to the Democrats "OPEN SEASON!"
And the vultures and character assassins stooped to the kill.
Recall the infamous Rule #13 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
By attacking the Tea Party candidate, the Establishment gave the go-ahead for the Dems to make each of these races about the individual rather than about Obama -- allowing the Dems to "freeze, personalize, and polarize" *our* candidates instead of Obama.
By contrast, look at two races which are not so contentious -- Marco Rubio in FL and Meg Whitman in CA.
Marco Rubio was helped greatly by the exposure of Crist as a DEM, and the infighting which (for once, in this election) was among the other party. He was, because of this, able to get his message out. Meg Whitman, the safe, establishment candidate for governor, met her doom when the Gloria Allred (what a fitting name!) / housekeeper scandal broke. Even though Meg followed the law, and the housekeeper was apparently the one using falsified documents, it took the wind out of Meg's sails. And the election became about her, establishment (and hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-in-her-warchest) candidate that she was.
Lesson learned here: Reagan's 11th commandment, don't speak evil of another Republican.
But in order to do that, we need to make sure those who wear the label of Republican, are not RINOs.
Otherwise, they will break Reagan's 11th commandment, and allow the Alinskyites their opening: and then *dare* us to do it back (showing that we are not "true to principle" either, thereby 'justifying' their RINO stances on other issues with a tu quoque).(*)
In summary, let Jimmy Buffet's TeaPartyville serve as fitting bumper music:
Wastin' away again in TeaPartyville
Searching for my lost GOP voters
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame (b*tch wh*re c*nt "nuts and sluts")
But I know it's not all their fault
(*) The meme following McCain's 2008 debacle against Teh One was that the extremist Sarah Palin drove off the middle, and the prissy purists failed to support McCain.
But this election, when in at least two cases a prissy candidate OVERRODE the clear choice of the primaries, and either trashed the duly chosen candidate, or put themsleves forward as a write-in, or stayed on the ticket...somehow, it's still supposed to be the conservative candidate's fault.
Senators represent states.
Because if Karl Rove didn't say anything, the Democrats would have supported O'Donnell.
Senators represent states TO the Federal government; but when facing from the government TO the people, or when running, they represent (are the face of) a Party or an Administration.
And they can be made to rise or fall with the fortunes thereof.
Read my earlier piece from this morning which is hyperlinked within this one.
It is totally hypocritical of the GOP party officials and party faithful to expect everyone to vote R out of duty and for every unsuccessful candidate to support the primary winner EXCEPT when the people pick the winner and that winner doesn’t have the party stamp of approval.
The GOP cut everyone’s throat, not just the candidates in these states and not just the people in these states.
The GOP said BOHICA to America.
thankfully, in two out of four cases, the idiot pub dissenter was shot down....
I think if COD nationalized her race, it would have been even worse for her......
The attacks was one directional.
Every single week, Gov. Palin took on Obama and the corrupt DNC.
The other RINOs (led by Rove, Cornyn, the NRSC) attacked
select GOP-election-chosen candidates thought to eventually be a threat
to .... Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, Romneys poodles in California and Massachusetts
lost because citizens hate Romney,
his surrogates and his RomneyCARE.
Thanks for clearing that up.
The GOP normally expects candidates to support the primary winner.
The GOP sabotaged O’Donnell.
There is in legal circles the concept of "admission against interest" which is usually felt to have more credibility than a merely partisan assertion.
Rove's imprimatur by bashing her *on FOX NEWS* and *ON THE NIGHT SHE WON THE NOMINATION* (the more so as "The Architect") gave a social signal that she wasn't going to be defended, so piling on would be OK.
he could have been noncommittal...he could have just been quiet....
but when you have the supposed king maker of the pub party....personally, he's the king of poop island....and others attacking...yes ATTACKING a pub candidate from the git go...well, its not going to go well..
I don't know if COD would have won...probably not...but it would have been a race on the issues and not on high school or college antics...
Losers always look for someone to blame.
Yes, like Obama.
Successes analyze their setbacks and take corrective action.
Yes, like Obama.
Successes analyze their setbacks and take corrective action.
Ridiculous. The democrats had all of that and were already talking about it.
You want to paint Rove as the villain here, but you’re merely repeating the prevailing wisdom because he’s on the outs with the party right now.
Rove invented nothing, uncovered nothing, merely repeated. The idea that the democrats were not intending to bash her with all that ammo, but Rove woke them up and instead of sitting around saying ‘Darn, we can’t attack her, those mean Republicans will fight back!’ they perked up and realized “Oh, boy, Karl Rove attacked her, now WE can!”
Utterly ridiculous and for all your quoting from your rhetoric text, it’s merely spun from your imagination and has nothing to do with the actual democrat playbook.
No other person who ran last night had their win or loss described as “He owed it to the party” or “She lost because of the party.”
O’Donnell failed because O’DONNELL failed, not because Karl Rove told the truth that was common knowledge.
Yeah Darkwolf it’s such a good idea to have famous neocons like Rove attacking the Republican nominee. </s>
I don’t think that Rove actually did much harm. Of course, he should never be hired again, unless it’s by the Democrats.
Here’s the list:
Podhoretz, Frum, Gerson, Brooks, Kristol, Krauthammer, Perino, Rove
They have to be fired by whoever allows them to pose as good Republicans.
Sure, it hurt more that Castle wouldn’t endorse Christine than whatever the weasel Rove and his neocons had to say, and at least now we know who needs to rebrand themselves as Conservative Democrats.
Sorry, I've just had it with the whining about this completely unqualified person.
I didn't accept it from Obama. I don't accept it from someone in "the party of adults."
I don't get this bizarre idea--we're supposed to respect her as this tough conservative woman, and yet nothing is her fault--she's been 'sabotaged' by the very people we don't give any credit for the successes of the Republicans who won. I haven't seen ONE winning Republican being credited with his win because "The GOP" made it possible. ONLY O'Donnell....
I started to excerpt her wikipedia entry and just gave up. Check it yourself, if you can stomach it. I will excerpt the parts about her previous campaigns and her work with a conservative organization, but look at the entry, there's plenty there about her 'misstatements,' her financial problems (which we would NEVER accept from a democrat), and her paper-thin resume:
In 2003 O'Donnell moved to Delaware to work for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), a non-profit conservative publisher of educational materials and bought a house in Wilmington. She filed a gender discrimination complaint,/b> against ISI with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2004 saying that she had been demoted because the conservative philosophy of ISI dictated that women should be subordinated to men. She was fired and then sued ISI in 2005 in federal court for $6.9 million for wrongful termination claiming gender discrimination and that she had been fired in retaliation for filing the EEOC discrimination complaint. She said ISI's actions caused her mental anguish and were a consequence of "ISI's conservative beliefs" She also claimed that she had lost future financial earning power because ISI's actions had delayed her education.[nb 4] ISI defended its action by alleging that O'Donnell had used company resources for her own media consulting work while on their time.. O'Donnell dropped the suit in 2008, stating she could no longer afford an attorney.
In October 2007 O'Donnell stopped paying on the mortgage for her Wilmington house and the mortgage company obtained a judgment against her in the spring of 2008 for $90,000. The house was to be sold at a sheriff's auction in August 2008 when she sold it the month prior to her Senate campaign attorney who was also her boyfriend at the time.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed a lien in 2010 that said that O'Donnell owed $11,000 in back taxes and penalties from 2005, according to public records. ODonnell said that it was a mistake and a computer error, and noted that the IRS agent handling the matter claimed he was perplexed by the agency's actions. In campaign finance reports, she listed herself as self-employed and said she was doing odd jobs to make ends meet. Because of financial difficulties, she moved to a Delaware townhouse, where she paid half the rent with campaign funds because she also used separate quarters in the residence as her campaign headquarters for her 2010 Senate run.
Several days after the 2010 primary, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington alleged that O'Donnell made false statements on Federal Elections Commission filings and illegally used more than $20,000 of her campaign funds as "her very own personal piggy bank" by claiming campaign expenses during a time when she had no official campaign. The group filed a complaint on September 20, 2010 with the Federal Elections Commission and asked the U.S. Attorney in Delaware to investigate. O'Donnell responded to the accusations, telling reporters there was "no truth to it. I personally have not misused the campaign funds" and refused to answer specific questions about her finances asked by CNN.
2006 ...as a write-in candidate, finishing with 11,127 votes, (4 percent of the total votes cast), a number that was considered remarkably large for a write-in and which gave her hope for the 2008 election.
2008 Her 2008 campaign ended with $23,000 in debt. As of March 2010, O'Donnell owed payments to staffers, consultants, and volunteers from the 2008 campaign.
Between 2007 and 2009 the Federal Election Commission cited her eight times for failing to supply contributions reports on time.
Got 4% in previous election as a write-in.
Lost to Joe Biden 65% to 35%.
Lost to Coons 57% to 40%
She repeatedly breaks campaign finance rules, doesn't pay her employees, sues a conservative employer and mentions its conservative beliefs as reason for her "mental anguish" for $6.9 MILLION ("She said ISI's actions caused her mental anguish and were a consequence of "ISI's conservative beliefs"), blames the party for her problems though she's polling behind by double digits and putting on ridiculous TV ads about not being a witch, can't keep her personal finances in order...
...but we're supposed to respect her as a conservative AND feel sorry for her being 'sabotaged'?
As far as I can see, the only reason she has support from conservatives is because she is a Christian and espouses those beliefs. That is great. It's not good enough to be one of only 100 senators.
You know who sabotaged Christine O'Donnell? Christine O'Donnell
One person and only one person is responsible for the overall management of a campaign and that is the candidate. Who they hire and place in charge of various functions within the campaign will be a major determinate in how successful the candidate is. Win or lose the buck stops at the top.
Yeah, I said that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.