Tea Party Challenger Fails in Kansas (Kansas!)

Vanity ^ | August 6, 2014 | Nathan Bedford

[Ohioan]

You make some significant points. Certainly, if Roberts' younger opponent was able to articulate well on TV, that would recommend him to many. (The ability to speak at length on TV, without the crutches on which less adequate candidates rely, can be enormously beneficial to any candidate.) But in any election, you have to recognize that all sorts of sentimental factors are always in play.

An incumbent who has not overtly betrayed his constituents, will always have a certain residual vote. Remember that most voters are not really ideological. If they are not offended by someone's offensive behavior, they will not ordinarily change a previous voting pattern.

Finally, a loss by only 7 or 8%, in a race against a long-serving incumbent, is generally seen as a very strong showing. I suspect that it will move Senator Roberts to the right, if anything. And the fact that he stood with Ted Cruz at a crucial moment, suggests that he will indeed move in that direction--not that he was ever a Left-Winger.

William Flax

[C. Edmund Wright]

Well a couple of things to consider……so just thinking out loud:

Knocking off incumbent senators is HARD!!! No way you’re going to bat anything like 50% in that pursuit.

These primaries have delivered “body blows” to McConnell, Cochran, Roberts - maybe not a knock out punch, but they’re weakened some. The Barbour machine may in fact be dead to the future, regardless of what happens in Mississippi.

Roberts was not necessarily a hill to die on - and Wolf made that bad mistake early. Really hurt him.

[nathanbedford]

I believe you have seen this post before, nevertheless I presume on your good nature to publish it once again for the benefit of other FReepers:

Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of the American Constitution:

The Constitution has become so distorted in interpretation and application that it has become at best ineffective in protecting liberty and at worst an instrument inflicting tyranny.

Nathan Bedford's second Maxim of the American Constitution:

The American Constitution is being amended everyday without the consent of the governed.

In order to believe that a Convention of the States presents a greater threat to liberty than our current state of politics one must believe:

1. The Constitution is not being amended by three women in black robes +1 liberal in black robes +1 swing vote on a case by case basis.

2. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president by executive order.

3. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president when he chooses which laws he will "faithfully" execute.

4. The Constitution is not being amended daily by regulation done by an unaccountable bureaucracy.

5. The Constitution is not being amended by simply being ignored.

6. The Constitution is not being amended by international treaty.

7. The Constitution is not being amended by Executive Order creating treaty powers depriving citizens of liberty as codified in the Bill of Rights.

8. The Constitution is not being amended by international bureaucracies such as, UN, GATT, World Bank, etc.

9. The Constitution is not being amended by the Federal Reserve Bank without reference to the will of the people.

10. The federal government under our current "constitutional" regime has suddenly become capable of reforming itself, balancing the budget and containing the debt.

11. The national debt of the United States is sustainable and will not cause the American constitutional system and our economy to crash and with them our representative democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, such as it is, itself.

12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.

13. That a runaway Convention of the States will occur, that it will persuade the delegates from conservative states, that it will be ratified by three quarters of the states' legislatures among whom conservatives control a majority, that we will not be able to carry 13 legislatures in separate states out of 99 legislatures in 50 states, and the end result will somehow be worse than what we have now.

14. If we do nothing everything will be fine; if we keep doing what we have been doing everything will be fine; we have all the time in the world.

[LS]

I reject it out of hand, not because of what the Declaration says, but because of what history shows inevitably happens. I repeat my earlier challenge: show me one of these revolutions when it did not get out of hand and inevitably end up with something worse?

[LS]

This is a false argument. Nobody says things are fine and you know it. Nobody says that there aren’t ongoing changes (which, of course, was argued when slaves were freed, or when the Civil Service Act was passed, or when any zillion other changes have occurred. So please, refrain from the straw men and address the issues I raised.

[mac_truck]

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.

Its not relevant.

The Taxed Enough Already grassroots doesn't espouse a position on Israel beyond a general desire to cut back on all foreign aid, including aid to Israel.

Again, if you really want to get into it, why don't you start your own thread?

[Olog-hai]

In all such cases, it was leftists committing the revolution. They follow the pattern of the French Revolution, which makes the American War of Independence a unique occurrence in history.

[Olog-hai]

It’s relevant insofar as that comparison was made. Denying it with rhetoric does not strengthen your position. I did not “get into it” in the first place, therefore.

Never mind mischaracterizing Tea Partiers (which is not a party despite your left-handed attempt to portray it as such) in general with respect to Israel—they are not all Paulbots, nor do they all advocate a unilateral cessation of foreign aid to allies.

[nathanbedford]

You suggest that every revolution runs away but surely not every reform runs away. But let's assume that you are correct, the founding fathers ran away (you and I disagree on this history but I'm assuming arguendo your point of view) you must then concede that in your view it would have been better for the founding fathers to have done nothing. They should not have started the revolution against Great Britain, they should not have reformed the articles of Confederation. In fact, by your logic it would be better for no reform movement in history ever to have occurred. That is absurd.

You argue that since we cannot win (i.e. reform) Republican primaries how can we hope to reform with Article V amendments. Two reasons: 1) the players are different and more conservative in the state legislatures or state conventions created by state legislatures than are the players in Washington; 2) I have repeatedly posted that it will probably require a "black swan" event to change the political landscape enough to animate the state legislatures to reform. But as I expressed in my last post that day of reckoning might not be long delayed.

You ask how we will be able to control the people in an Article V convention. There are many strictures which the state legislatures can place on their delegates and, as noted in my next previous post, it would require only 13 separate legislatures of 99 to block any wrongheaded amendments.

You assert the following oxymoron:

"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."

If the founders knew it one might think it passing strange that they inserted Article V into the Constitution. I think they actually intended it to be used in precisely these circumstances and that's why we have it.

I trust you found this responsive .

[BillyBoy]

>> That’s one of the reason that I wasn’t buying what he was selling. <<

Here's one of the reasons I didn't buy what Miltie was selling. His "fearless conservative fighter" image appears to have been created solely for his Senate race and didn't exist prior to that:

http://metrovoicenews.com/milton-wolf-sheeps-clothing/

I find it interesting how Wolf's fan club says this senate race should be judged on what the candidate has done instead of what he says. Yet their own candidate was exempt from their rules.

>> I predict that Kansas will see him less and that his conservative voting record will dip into the 50% range. <<

That would put him around where Arlen Specter's voting record was prior to switching parties, so I'm going to predict you're completely wrong. I doubt the Milton Wolf fanclub will ever admit they were wrong, though. The Liz Cheney fanclub insisted over and over again that Liz Cheney was "forcing Mike Enzi to the right" and he only voted conservative because she was challenging him and he was afraid of losing a primary. Now she's long gone after dropping out of the race, and he's still reliably voting conservative. Not a single Liz Cheney cheerleader has apologized for their false smear against Enzi or admitted they were wrong.

[centurion316]

That would put him around where Arlen Specter's voting record was prior to switching parties, so I'm going to predict you're completely wrong.

Roberts was in that range for 3 of the past 10 years, so it's conceivable that he will return to that realm. There is certainly nothing to constrain him now. It's probably just as likely that he return to the 60 - 70% band and almost no chance that he stays at 90. Kansas Republicans aren't even in the 90% column, so that's not what we will see in the future.

[BillyBoy]

>> 1. Pat Roberts was 78 years old and will be 84 or 85 when his term expires. <<

When I first started lurking on FR, Storm Thurmond was 96 years old and would be 100 years old when his term expired in 2003. His voting record was similar to Roberts -- not perfect (he voted the wrong way on a handful of important bills) but definitely one of the more reliably conservative senators. Nobody screamed "RINO!!" at Strom, called him Democrat-lite, insisted that "its time for the old geezer to go or be pushed", or recruited some unknown clueless amateur from Spartenberg to oppose him. Back then, we fought to remove actual RINOs like Arlen Specter, instead of eating our own and wasting lots of time and money to purge people who agree with us.

>> 2. Pat Roberts is not set foot in Kansas except to campaign since Dorothy went skipping down the yellow brick road. <<

Neither had Liz Cheney in Wyoming when she decided to run for Senator there a few months ago, but since she was the self-proclaimed "Tea Party" candidate, 90% of the Milton Wolf cheerleaders were TOTALLY supportive of her running in a state she hadn't lived in since she was 12. Back in January, The Tea Party Express, RedState.com, Mark Levin, etc., had no problem whatsoever with a decades-long resident of Virginia running for Senator elsewhere. Sorry guys, the "treasonous when Roberts does it but awesome when Liz Cheney does it" message didn't help your cause. Maybe next time you shouldn't change your principles from candidate to candidate.

>> 3. Milton Wolf was an able candidate, with impeccable conservative credentials <<

Stop right there. You are describing someone who doesn't exist. What were his "impeccable conservative credentials". Name one "conservative" thing he had ever done or said in public prior to running for Senate. Not a single Milton Wolf cheerleader has been able to answer this question (and Fieldmarshaldj has poised it every thread), because Milton Wolf's "conservative credentials" didn't exist and his "fearless conservative fighter" persona was invented for a Senate race. Anyone can promise anything to get elected, that doesn't give them "impeccable credentials" to demonstrate it. Wolf's appeal was much like his "cousin" Obama in 2008: a "fresh and new" politician with no political track record who gives slick speeches promising to fundamentally change Washington DC if we elect him.

>> 4. The setback in Kansas is not isolated but part of a pattern across the country in which we see establishment Republicans prevailing over Tea Party reformers. <<

Wolf is part a pattern of embarrassing Tea Party "reformers" who turn out to be terrible candidates. That puts him in the same category as jokes like Sharon Angle and Ken Buck. When the Tea Party runs CREDIBLE candidates, they've won numerous times. Read up on Ben Sasse, Jodi Ernst, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, David Brat, etc., etc. I guarantee you none of them ran on being distantly related to Obama. They could stand on their own two feet.

>> 5. The loss was not close, seven or eight points. <<

Yes, again, because Milton Wolf sucked and had nothing to offer voters but endlessly talk about how he's distantly related to Obama and that electing him would somehow "embarrass Obama". You can't win with nobody, sorry. If Roberts had been an ACTUAL RINO and you had a PROVEN conservative running against him, it would be an entirely different scenario. Chris McDaniels didn't run on an Obamaesque message of "hope and change" against someone who was already solidly conservative, or base his candidacy around being distantly related to Pelosi.

[nathanbedford]

1. Pat Roberts was 78 years old and will be 84 or 85 when his term expires.

Pat Roberts is too old and too detached to lead a charge to clean up Washington. The Republic is not in the condition today to continue business as usual. We cannot afford placeholders, even conservative placeholders.

2. Pat Roberts is not set foot in Kansas except to campaign since Dorothy went skipping down the yellow brick road

Those of us who supported Liz Cheney against a moderately conservative candidate in Wyoming did so for the same reasons I expressed in the preceding paragraph, we are at war and we need people who will wage war.

3. Milton Wolf was an able candidate, with impeccable conservative credentials

Wolf certainly was an able candidate, he was credible on television etc. He was possessed of "impeccable" conservative credentials in the proper sense of the word in that there was no flaw against him as a conservative.

4. The setback in Kansas is not isolated but part of a pattern across the country in which we see establishment Republicans prevailing over Tea Party reformers.

It is the pattern which is concerning. Each race can be rationalized as a local matter but cumulatively the pattern is very concerning. Are we to suppose that all the candidates against Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Mitch McConnell, and Thad Cochran were somehow deficient? Even in Mississippi we could not prevail to victory over the establishment even though we won the vote among the conservative electorate. We've seen some very good candidates lose and we've seen some good candidates lose with one slip of the tongue. Against these imagined deficiencies of all of these candidates we must weigh the state of the union and ask ourselves, if we cannot win under these circumstances when can we win?

5. The loss was not close, seven or eight points.

Milton Wolf did not "suck," we simply disagree. If in this context you had pointed out that the Republican establishment Senate campaign committee had funded Roberts, had Senate Republicans put foot soldiers on the ground which made a difference, had they run a ground game and Robert's behalf, all as reported today in Politico, we would be in agreement on shared facts. But those facts only go to show how daunting it is for reformers to prevail over incumbents backed by the establishment. All of this, by the way, is alluded to in my original vanity.

Seven points is not close by anybody's count.

[LS]

Again, it would require only 13 of 99 if they followed the law. And I maintain once the can of worms is opened, the law begins to morph at uncontrollable rates.

The Revolution was a violent event. The "reformation" of the Articles (which I think necessary) was a stealth event in which the first vote was to (illegally) hold the meetings in secret and the second was to (illegally) ditch the Articles.

Finally, you are placing faith in state legislatures as the only body in the "system" capable of doing what is legal, Constitutional, and right. I don't think I'd want the GOP controlled Ohio legislature anywhere near this.

[BillyBoy]

You didn't address a single point I made, but simply repeated your own points. So I'll repeat it until you address them:

>> Pat Roberts is too old and too detached to lead a charge to clean up Washington. <<

AGAIN, Strom Thurmond was in his 90s and while he wasn't really completely out to lunch until shortly before his death, it was clear he wasn't the man he used to be and had to rely on staffers to do most of his work and didn't do much in the Senate but chair the occassional committee meeting and vote on legislation. Nobody called him and a RINO or Democrat lite and demanding his head on a platter because we didn't eat our own back then. We instead focused exclusively on removing liberal Republicans. You are hellbent on removing people who agree with you while numerous incumbent liberal Republicans are allowed to coast to re-nomination. Your priorities are simply wrong and misguided.

>> Those of us who supported Liz Cheney against a moderately conservative candidate in Wyoming did so for the same reasons I expressed in the preceding paragraph <<

So again, your message is "unforgivable sin when Pat Roberts lives in Virginia and runs in another state, but AWESOME and totally welcomed when Liz Cheney does it"

Double standards simply aren't helping your cause. The Tea Party preaching "Do as I say, NOT as we do" isn't resonating with voters. You wanted to know why your candidates fail, here is an example why. You ignore it at your own peril. Either it's bad to run for office in a state where you haven't lived in decades, or its not. You can't change the rules in the middle of an election cycle because you dislike one candidate and hold him to a different standard.

Furthermore, Mike Enzi isn't a "moderate" and Pat Roberts isn't a "RINO". Continually saying they are doesn't make it true, and voters can look up the facts and see that you're simply lying about their records. Kansas GOP primary voters didn't support Wolf precisely because they WERE informed about how reliable Roberts has been on the issues we care about. Both men are far more conservative than the average Senator. Cindy Sheehan can claim Nancy Pelosi is a neo-con warmonger and in bed with Bush (which she did when she ran against her), that didn't make it true either, and voters didn't buy her BS, either.

>> Wolf certainly was an able candidate, he was credible on television etc. He was possessed of "impeccable" conservative credentials in the proper sense of the word in that there was no flaw against him as a conservative. <<

By those standards, Barack Obama had "impeccable" credentials as a reformer who will heal the partisan divide, because he said so on television and it sounded good in speeches. It didn't matter what his ACTUAL track record was (being a Chicago machine Democrat hack who did nothing while Illinois was rampantly overrun with corruption)

>> It is the pattern which is concerning. Each race can be rationalized as a local matter but cumulatively the pattern is very concerning. Are we to suppose that all the candidates against Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Mitch McConnell, and Thad Cochran were somehow deficient? <<

The candidates against Graham and McConnell certainly were. I would say Chris McDaniels wasn't (he WAS a credible PROVEN conservative with a track record) and that is WHY Daniels had a stunning upset and BEAT Cochran in the initial primary. He'd be Senator now if Mississippi didn't have a runoff that allowed open primary voting (allowing massive numbers of Dems to vote for Cochran) and you guys weren't diverting people's attention trying to annihilate other candidates who agree with you, instead of focusing like a laser beam on RINOs like Cochran and Lamar. There's only so much time and money to go around and we have to pick our battles carefully and stragetically. YOU don't. That's the problem you fail to see. We don't have unlimited resources to purge EVERY incumbent because you believe you all incumbents are evil.

>> if we cannot win under these circumstances when can we win? <<

I suggest you ask Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Ben Sasse this question. They were Tea Party Senate candidates who WON and yet you still don't GET it.

>> Milton Wolf did not "suck" <<

If you honestly believe a creep who posts X-Rays of murder victms on facebook to laugh at them and has only "Barack Obama's conservative cousin" as his "qualifications" for the Senate is a "good" candidate, there's no hope for you and you'll still be wondering decades from now why you can't get these pathetic excuse for candidates elected to the highest legislative office in the country.

And, sorry, this is very different from what the founders envisioned. If you guys had been in charge back then, you would have shunned "career politician" Thomas Jefferson for President (he's been Congressman, Governor, Minister to France, Secretary of State and served in Washington too long... he's been there two decades... time for him to go) in favor of the local candlestick maker in Richmond who has NEVER been involved in politics but PROMISES he will be more of a "fighter" than ol' Tom.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Those of us who supported Liz Cheney against a moderately conservative candidate in Wyoming did so for the same reasons I expressed in the preceding paragraph, we are at war and we need people who will wage war."

Wage war against whom ? Liz is a beltway scion whose attempt at trying to run in a state she had little to do with was nothing short of embarrassing. Fortunately, she had the common sense to withdraw when the public made their distaste for her carpetbagging loud and clear.

"Wolf certainly was an able candidate, he was credible on television etc. He was possessed of "impeccable" conservative credentials in the proper sense of the word in that there was no flaw against him as a conservative."

So Wolf was credible... on television ? He can use that to try out for a part on "General Hospital." Let us be reminded once more, he had no credentials at all. No record, no nothing. He was a guy who was bored and decided one day to run for the Senate. If his cousin could do it a decade ago in Illinois, why not him ? It's that simple. Anyone claiming he had "right" credentials of any actual nature is akin to someone peeing on ones' head and being assured it's a nice spring rain.

[BillyBoy]

>> Roberts was in that range for 3 of the past 10 years, so it's conceivable that he will return to that realm. There is certainly nothing to constrain him now. It's probably just as likely that he return to the 60 - 70% band and almost no chance that he stays at 90. <<

So before you predicted he'll vote about "50%" conservative in the future, but now you're predicting he'll vote in the range of "60-70%" conservative. Sounds to me like you're hedging your bets and don't want me to hold you to the prediction that Roberts will morph into an Arlen Specter clone next year.

Interesting enough, even your fellow Wolf supporters on this thread disagree that Roberts is going to move leftward after he's re-elected. Ohioan noted:

>> a loss by only 7 or 8%, in a race against a long-serving incumbent, is generally seen as a very strong showing. I suspect that it will move Senator Roberts to the right, if anything. And the fact that he stood with Ted Cruz at a crucial moment, suggests that he will indeed move in that direction--not that he was ever a Left-Winger. <<

Finally, are you willing to admit that Liz Cheney cheerleaders have now been proven wrong when they insisted Mike Enzi was only voting solidly conservative because Liz Cheney was on the ballot against him?

[centurion316]

I could care less about Liz Cheney, but she’s clearly a burr under your saddle. You can hold me to my prediction, bye.

[Impy]

Lizzie would be a “fighter” FOR the GOP-E!!!!!! She IS the GOP-E for cripes sake.

[nathanbedford]

When it comes to the GOP I am freshly out of loyalty. I look at the field of United States senators who claim affiliation with the Republican Party from safe seats and I ask, what have you done for the conservative cause lately?

What has Lindsey Graham done from his safe seat in South Carolina? He has been more than a nuisance, more than an obstruction, he has been an active agent against conservative principles.

What has Mitch McConnell done? He has colluded with Karl Rove to siphon off donor monies into campaigns to defeat conservative Republican challengers who bear the label "Tea Party," even applauding the treachery in Mississippi.

What has Lamar Alexander done from his relatively safe seat in Tennessee? He's been on the wrong side of every issue including amnesty.

What have of the placeholders done, Mike Enzi, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn and the others? What have they done to advance conservatism? Too hard a question? What have they done to impede Obamas tyranny? Still too hard?

Do you really believe that these guys will repeal Obamacare? Do you really believe that these guys will fail to endorse amnesty? Oh they might give you a head fake but if their votes are needed they will betray us. Some like Alexander and Graham at least are upfront about it. The rest are skulking around the cloak room ready to do the bidding of K St. or of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.

I don't give a damn about conservative credentials if they are not worth anything. To be worth something conservatives from safe seats must do something. Yes, I judge senators from safe seats more harshly than those from marginal seats. No apologies.

Let's put the fear of God in some of these placeholders and turncoats to "encourage" the others.