You must have been watching some other election where an Olympia Snowe type candidate was the incumbent. Pat Roberts is the one of the most reliable staunch conservatives in the U.S. Senate, and even the most die-hard Milton Wolf supporters in Kansas have begrudgingly admitted that. Every political organization that rates politicians also reflects that and shows that Roberts votes the right way over 90% of the time. He was one of only a handful of Senators who stood with Ted Cruz during the filibuster while the REST of the Senate Republicans caved.
If that's your idea of a "RINO", I'd hate to see what your definition of conservative is.
We’re not in Kansas any more.
Simple: Eating your own. Being hell bent on "taking out" incumbents who are strong supporters of Ted Cruz, while giving actual RINOs a pass (nobody bothered to lift a finger to help Joe Carr defeat Lamar Alexander until the last few weeks of the campaign, and even worse, we have this defeatist attitude that liberal Republicans in so called "blue states" are the "best we can get", so the result is the GOP establishment shoved hard-left socialist like Mark Kirk in the U.S. Senate, and our side went along with it).
You don't see the UKIP in England try to "target" the best members of the Conservative Party simply because they're incumbents, and run a clueless amateur against them because some radio talk show thought it was a good idea. Instead they go after leftists in both parties and run credible candidates. That's why the UKIP is winning and the Tea Party is losing.
Elections are not going to save us. We went Soviet. They are now as corrupted as the rest of the federal beast and most Americans are clueless that the country has been overthrown in a velvet coup with inside help from the Ruling Class.
I like the fact that Kansas has a closed primary system; that’s a very good thing and helps the base hold incumbents accountable.
I dislike the fact that the Kansas primary election rules don’t allow for a run-off in the event no contestant gets at least 50% +1. That allows situations such as we had in Kansas where the incumbent gets less than a majority of the votes (that is, the majority actually voted AGAINST the incumbent and want to see him replaced) but because of MULTIPLE challengers the majority “AGAINST” vote was split.
A runoff election provision should be added so the base’s wishes can be actually captured.
The average person in Kansas is a goober moron Wal Mart shopping shlub. They are almost as part of the idiocracy as the polar bear hunters in the urban areas and the rest of the humanoids that are breeding and consuming and "Slouching towards Gomorrah" with great abandon.
It will take a natural or man made catastrophe and or a cult of personality strong enough to wake these fat flip flop wearers from their perpetual deep fried, trans fat, high fructose corn syrup food comas.
Stop giving in to despair. It’s silly and a waste of energy.
Reason being: Pat Roberts was not a good target, while Milton Wolf was something less than a good champion.
In general, there's nothing wrong with the way Pat Roberts votes -- he is a reliable conservative. Incumbency and tenure alone were not a sufficient reason to dump him.
In this regard, I have some inside information: My sis, the social worker, a radical lib who resides in Kansas, hates Pat Roberts with a purple passion. For me, that serves as an endorsement.
Milton Wolf, on the other hand, marshaled few arguments for his election beyond Roberts' incumbency and tenure plus his election might somehow embarrass his distant cousin. Frankly, he struck me as a bit of a kook and something less than a serious candidate.
By the way, my sis was rooting for Wolf -- on the premise that he would be easier for the Democrat to beat in the general election.
In other words, Roberts vs Wolf is not a contest that should reflect upon the Tea Party movement in any way.
I know Milton. He’s a partner in one of my companies, but he had zero name recognition and Roberts had a very good voting record. To whine about being able to “reform itself” is nonsense in this case. If Roberts was more liberal, or if Milton had a track record or was better known, then the article might have some credibility. Even Milton thought it was a long shot.
I voted for Wolf, but I am not disappointed Roberts won. He will continue to vote with conservatives almost all of the time. Roberts does not fit the definition of a RINO. It is time to look forward to November.
DC is full-blown cancer, and we waited too long to try to stop it. What we need to do now is render the feds powerless - that can only be done through the states. That’s where the tea party needs to focus their resources.
Simply put, Romney won.
Conservatives will be marginalized by him and Marriott
again (like Mr. Cain and the Speaker) and will
be endlessly attacked by his surrogates (like the
Palin children).
The GOP is scum, and supports Obama and ObamaCARE
and all things Soros.
Do not falsely claim that no one was warned.
This is the fourth election cycle ruined by the RomneyBOTs.
Pick up and work to apply pressure to what “representation” we have. The Tea Party looses much of it’s appeal when it tries to emulate a political party. The Tea Party as an idea, a concept, a collection of precepts and expectations. As a king maker is where it shines. When you cloak ideas into political party cloth, you pick up the fleas and parasites. In turn making the party a target that can be isolated and attacked rather than something that draws open support.
The left didn’t build their Baracka Machine in a couple of elections, it took generations of infiltration and brainwashing. Look at the tarnish that it has accumulated in 6 years.
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.
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.
It's the power of incombency. Very tough to beat, especially at the statewide level.
I think what we have here (in this race) is a demonstration of how the simplistic principle of “vote conservative” is not the only way to political salvation.
There needs to be more definition given to what it means to be “conservative” if there are going to be fights as this after elections like this.
This race is emblematic of a real problem in the conservative movement (beyond not being willing to put small matters aside) and that is the simple fact different people define “conservative” differently.
In races where it’s clear, for example Eric Cantor’s loss, the Tea Party movement does have success. But in races in Kansas where the lines are a bit blurrier, there will sometimes be outcomes like this.
Ultimately, is it a bad thing? I don’t know but it seems to me we have two choices:
1. we can argue even more, further dividing the movement, if there is no ultimate decision forthcoming (and I don’t see how there could be, since the Tea Party movement has no leader or even leadership).
2. If no leadership is forthcoming, then there is no point in dwelling over results like this because really, who’s to say who’s “right”? The people who voted for Roberts? The ones who voted against him? It should be obvious to anyone who is reasonable that without a leadership to make such a decision, any fights along these and similar lines will only weaken the movement over something that ultimately has no resolution. At least not on a national or even state level. So it’s best to just move on.
It thus seems to me #2 is in order. Or else factionalism will rule the day, which is really what the leftists want.
What’s the ultimate message here? Unless there is some way to agree upon basics beyond mere platitudes like “vote conservative”, then there are going to be times as this where we are going to be FORCED to be pragmatic. I know some around here recoil in horror at that term but this is simply the reality of the situation.
I’ve read this thread; both “sides” have good points for their arguments. There is no clear contrast like there is between simple conservatism and liberalism. So we can either spend this time tearing each other apart or both “sides” capitulate, and concede there are valid points from the other, and then just move on.
It’s either that or we are forced eventually to accept a “Romney” again as we busy ourselves with minutia such as this, the elitists benefit from the distraction and sneak in another lukewarm national candidate. And then the pragmatism becomes nauseating.