Tea Party Challenger Fails in Kansas (Kansas!)

Vanity ^ | August 6, 2014 | Nathan Bedford

[nathanbedford]

The news that just came across my screen on Fox that incumbent Senator Pat Roberts has prevailed in his primary for reelection to the Senate from Kansas (or in his case from Arlington, Virginia) is heartbreaking.

The implications are dispiriting. His victory implies that in the American heartland the Republican Party cannot reform itself when confronted with an egregious example of elitism. If the Republican Party in Kansas (Kansas!) cannot reform itself there, how can it expect to prevail in purple states? How can we expect to carry a message to Reagan Democrats and Independents if The Tea Party cannot even convince Kansas farmers that their absentee senator of 36 years no longer remotely represents their interests in Washington?

If The Tea Party in Kansas cannot penetrate the consciousness of staunch conservatives where can it prevail? If the apparatus of the Republican machine in Kansas can prevail with a flat-out Rino whose very connection to the state is so patently fraudulent over a genuine grassroots conservative, a physician, how can the GOP establishment be reformed anywhere?

Before I give in to despair I will await the postmortems which will no doubt tell me that Pat Roberts flooded the zone with money, beat us on the airwaves, that our candidate was somehow flawed, that the challengers simply did not have the infrastructure and the ground game etc.

But I fear that even in these parlous times of malaise at home and failure everywhere abroad, the ideal constituency of The Tea Party was indifferent to the current state of affairs or was somehow behind the power curve and utterly ignorant of the facts of Pat Roberts residence and voting record. Somehow, the message in this case cannot be said to have been wrong, at best we can hope that the cause was a failure of execution. I doubt such a best case but I await the details.

Finally, this defeat for reform is alas not an isolated setback. We have seen that the Republican establishment apparatus is so powerful in Mississippi that it can set aside a decisive Tea Party victory in a primary by hijacking the runoff. We have seen what has happened in South Carolina, Kentucky and what will happen in Tennessee. I hope we get enough data out of these primaries to tell us what went wrong. With luck we will find that we simply do not have the infrastructure to prevail in an election on a statewide basis because a reform movement cannot hope to prevail once every six years with a top-down effort against a well entrenched, fully financed Republican establishment. No matter what the data tells me, however, I am discouraged by the tone deafness of Republicans everywhere.

[1010RD]

Very good and true of every political race. Political naïfs are dangerous. Example one: Obama.

[1010RD]

So it is the Americans residing in KS who are to blame, right?

[1010RD]

Put the bong down. You’re suffering from RDS.

[what's up]

The hate for someone who votes the right way 90 percent of the time is why the tea party is often not taken seriously.

Eating your own is a very good way to enable fascist democrats.

[nathanbedford]

LS and 1010RD, both of whom I have profound respect for, regard the primary results in Missouri to be sui generis and probably inconsequential. On the other hand I regard the results to be significant and part of a larger pattern. Is it coincidence that both LS and 1010RD oppose the Article V movement while I support it?

I see the pattern repeated in South Carolina, Mississippi (albeit by treachery but the involvement of the establishment there is only more blatant than elsewhere) Kansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. Each one of these losses can be rationalized by localizing the races but, considered cumulatively, they constitute a pattern of undeniable failure of reform. If we believe that the Republic is hurtling toward a fiscal cliff, if we believe our liberties are being usurped by executive tyranny, then we must be avid for reform. Sadly, this pattern of failure likely signifies that the primary process is not the vehicle which will lead us to saving reforms.

But primaries are only the first half of the two-step process, the second half occurs on the first Tuesday in November when we can expect an election and we will then hope to see Republicans take back control of the Senate. Will a November victory produce saving reform?

We don't have to speculate, we know how the Senators will behave in January 2015 because we saw most of them in action for decades especially during the Bush years when we had the House and Senate and used our majorities to explode spending, add more trillions to the debt than ever before, put Medicaid on steroids, pass prescription drugs, and invade our schools. The list of progressive triumphs in these years goes on and on. We are now expected to exalt hope over experience and believe that the electoral process will put the same people plus a few more back into control, but this time they will somehow be different.

I believe that the electoral process in November offers no more realistic hope that did the primary process to facilitate saving reform.

I would not like to believe that my discouragement about the outcome in Kansas is colored by my pessimism about the primary process as a vehicle for reform. Equally, I would not like to believe that fear of the Article V movement would color anyone's beliefs about how we have fared overall in the primary process.

The virtues or hidden traps of the Article V movement are worthy of debate and I, of course, relish the chance to participate with you two.

[Olog-hai]

Looks like you missed this bit on the seventh page:

UKIP supports the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. UKIP rejects calls for Israel to be punished for defending itself from attack. Yet UKIP calls on Israel to continue to ensure its military actions remain proportionate and to pursue a political solution to a political problem. …

Never mind this nestled in paragraph 16.5 from the 22^nd page (why no highlight?)

Israel has every right to respond with proportionate force to these attacks …

Most definitely inherently anti-Semitic.

And of course, there are 16.5 and 16.6, which you seem to have deliberately ignored.

UKIP urges Israel to adopt a lasting solution based on a political dialogue and not just military strength. Political problems require political solutions. As with any genuine friend, UKIP reserves the right to be critical of Israel. We urge the Israeli army (IDF) to be proportional in its operations. UKIP is particularly concerned by the alleged use of white phosphorus on the battlefield by the IDF and by allegations of Gaza Strip blockades which hinders reconstruction. Allegations that the Israeli secret service, Mossad, stole the identities of British citizens to forge passports for a hit squad that carried out an assassination in Dubai is also deeply concerning. UKIP is an ally of Israel, as is Britain, and if the allegations are true, it would be a damaging abuse of our friendship that Israel chose to abuse the identities of nationals of a supportive country.

UKIP calls for an immediate halt to the building of new settlements considered illegal under international law. …

Sounds like a word-for-word copy of liberal talking points, never mind anti-Israel propaganda.

This document cannot be found on the current UKIP website, but an absence is not a repudiation.

[Olog-hai]

Going by percentage of votes? Meaningless. Focus more on impact rather than numbers.

[Olog-hai]

Lots of liberal talking points there, especially the blasphemy against Christ. This country was founded by men whose slogan was “no king but King Jesus”. Looks like IL has rubbed off on you too much. Again, vote “percentage” is meaningless in the face of impact.

[Servant of the Cross]

A very worthy post mortem exercise, and as you mention, there are already previous threads on similar results in SC, KY, MS ... To oust an incumbent Senator is truly a long, hard slog. Many many factors to this (not a complete list):

1) the ignorance of the electorate cannot be overlooked. Government schooling, manipulation and dumbed-down by the media/technology and its addictions (akin to Caesar controlling Romans via Colosseum 'games')

2) the incumbent; it's a war and we should choose our battles. Perhaps Roberts conservative record was a hill too big?

3) the challenger; for a statewide office (U.S. Senate), the challenger must be a recognized name in the state and have held an notable elected office before running. Like it or not, it is a prerequisite for an electorate like ours.

4) the ground game; the effort to win a statewide office requires a broad network of volunteers in every county (and even precinct) in the state. It requires years to develop this prior to running.

5) Publicity; a successful challenger should have an experienced and networked consultant who can help get not only influential statewide supporters, but truly key national influencers (Ingraham, Palin, Levin, etc.)

All of the above can be daunting and yes, discouraging. But we must fight on and never quit. Even when we don't succeed in outing the incumbent, we are pushing the incumbents back toward the right with future votes. While not large enough a voting block yet, the Tea Party Movement has the gOpE very aware that the same old same old won't work any more. Look at squish Trent Lott distancing himself from Cochran and Barbour. And RINO Corker's op-ed in the WSJ today on 0bama foreign policy is spot on. This is the stuff of reform, imho.

[what's up]

The record of how our reps vote is not meaningless.

[Olog-hai]

I didn’t say it was. I said the percentage is meaningless in the face of the impact of certain liberal-leaning votes.

[LS]

You think you have a foolproof "lockbox" to keep the Article V delegates in line. I say such a thing doesn't exist. The Founders knew it. All they sought to do with federalism and with separation of powers was to make change so slow, and so compartmentalized, that even when such men (and women) inevitably came into office, they would be checked by time and by the difficulty of enacting their crap.

Shorcuts to "take back control" of the system have no, repeat, no good outcome in history. I cannot think of a single revolution---maybe you can---where well-intentioned revolutionaries did not lose control of the process. This includes the Constitutional Convention, although I think they did the best job imaginable. The Russian democratic revolution was quickly overturned by "insiders." The English Puritan revolution was controlled by Cromwell. And so on.

I again restate my primary opposition to an Article V: if you cannot control REPUBLICAN primaries; and cannot win elections; and cannot ensure the appointment of conservative judges; then why in the world do you think that "just this once" we'll be able to control the people at an Article V convention?

I will state again that the failures in Kansas and before that in the NV and DE senate races were primarily that the Tea Party in its exuberance did not carefully vet candidates; that the vetting process itself (we call it winning and holding lower offices) was viewed as "part of the problem." Well, no it's not. It is the fundamental way people establish their seriousness, their ability to overcome the inevitable dirt of a campaign, and their ability to make tough choices. I wish my friend Milton had run for a House seat.

If you think back to the Republican Revolution of 1994-5, yes, we won a few Senate seats, and a couple of people (at least one, Ben Nighthorse Campbell) switched parties. But that revolution took place at the HOUSE level.

The inevitable then happened: some got fat and happy; some, like J.C. Watts and Steve Largent, either grew disenchanted or lived up to their term limits promises. Some became more liberal. A handful stuck it out, eventually moving up the ranks (Kasich as governor, for example).

So my take is that the GOP certainly can reform itself, but it is a much longer and more serious process than the Tea Partiers I have known care to engage in.

[DoodleDawg]

It was closer than I thought it would ever be. Last returns I saw had Roberts up by 7, 48% to 41%, in a four person race. Had Smith and Zahner not been in it then who knows what might have happened?

Now it's on to the general with an already declared independent in the race. If Wolf's supporters stay home then with a three way race it could be an interesting election night.

[Servant of the Cross]

Bump that. Big time.

[Olog-hai]

Past statesmen believed that the Constitution ought to be interpreted in light of the Declaration of Independence. This part of that document ought to be familiar to everyone here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. …

If of course the whole Article V move is rejected out of hand, then that is the sole recourse.

[mac_truck]

Looks like you missed this bit on the seventh page:

Well it seems you missed their entire position on Wahabism, but I didn't want to hijack this thread into a debate about UKIP's foreign policy positions.

Suffice it to say you're dead wrong about UKIP and if you'd like to have a detailed discussion about it, why not create a separate thread and state your case?

[Olog-hai]

How can I be “dead wrong about UKIP” when this is their own words? Do you expect leopards to change their spots? Those words against Israel nullify anything they claim about Wahhabism, especially if they omit that movements alliance with Salafism and Twelverism.

It is relevant to this thread, furthermore, to bring up these matters in the face of comparisons between the Tea Party and UKIP, which I did not initiate.

[centurion316]

You are quite correct for this year. However, when you take a little longer view, a different picture emerges.

Using Freedom Works, we find that his rating for 2014 is 89%, pretty good. But, his lifetime average is 79%, not quite hall of fame numbers. Let’s look at his years in the league since 2005:

05 - 79%
06 - 67%
07 - 50%
08 - 57%
09 - 77%
10 - 91%
11 - 65%
12 - 54%
13 - 91%
14 - 89%

That’s one of the reason that I wasn’t buying what he was selling. More important, from my standpoint is his record as an absentee Senator who doesn’t live here and believes that taking care of the Agri Business and Aviation industry lobby equals taking care of constituents. He’s a second generation professional politician and that sort need to be viewed with considerable suspicion.

Now that he’s squeaked by with a resounding vote of confidence from 48% of Republican voters, he will no doubt roll on to reelection without much trouble. The question is what can we expect from Roberts in his next term. I predict that Kansas will see him less and that his conservative voting record will dip into the 50% range. What’s your prediction.

[Lakeshark]

It is the inability of reformers overall to energize even conservative electorates in Kansas and elsewhere at a time of real peril to the nation and to our liberties that is dispiriting.

Yep, watching Graham waltz in was the first sign of a bad year for conservatives, I was shocked. And it continues, although in Roberts we don't have a full bore RINO.

It IS disconcerting and dispiriting, and that being said we can never, never, never, EVER give up, but we do need to heed a couple of things that aren't being discussed.

1. The circular firing squads here and elsewhere MUST be neutralized.
2. Our candidates need to have a refresher course in RR 101: Attack what's wrong with verve and humor. Outline a compelling, winsome case for why conservative principles are good, right, workable and that they will produce great results.

[Jabba the Nutt]

It is extremely difficult to defeat an incumbent. The forces of reaction attempted to defeated libertarian/conservative Congressman Justin Amash in west Michigan. They piled loads of money in and lost.

It's the power of incombency. Very tough to beat, especially at the statewide level.