GOP Groups Spend Three Times as Much Attacking Fellow Republicans as Democrats

[mystery-ak]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/gop-groups-spend-three-times-much-attacking-fellow-republicans-democrats_791148.html

GOP Groups Spend Three Times as Much Attacking Fellow Republicans as Democrats
Mark Hemingway
May 8, 2014 1:01 PM

Earlier this week, I reported on the absurdity of the open GOP Senate primary in Nebraska. Currently, outside groups affiliated with prominent Republican leaders are flooding the state with dishonest attack ads on the leading Republican candidate in the race, apparently motivated by petty intraparty rivalries. And now the Washington Post and the Center for Public Integrity have tallied up some pretty damning statistics on how this GOP feuding is damaging the party:

    According to a great new study from the Center for Public Integrity's Dave Levinthal, conservative super PACs and other outside groups this year have spent nearly three times as much money directly attacking fellow Republicans ($9.7 million) as directly attacking Democrats ($3.7 million).

    Here's where things get even more interesting: If you take it a step further and combine all spending by conservative and liberal outside groups, a majority of the money spent by these kinds of groups expressly for or against a candidate -- 53.8 percent -- has been used to attack Republicans ($9.7 million from conservative groups and $13.8 million from liberal groups), while a measly 8.5 percent has been used to attack Democrats.

    The GOP is spending 64 percent of all the money used on ads for or against candidates this year, but its candidates are bearing the brunt of more than six times as many attacks ads as Democrats.

more here at the Post

[Relic]

Just bolsters my stated opinion that the GOPe is simply the right wing of the Democrat party.

[Bigun]

Once again it's the beltway bastards against all the rest of us!

[andy58-in-nh]

Just bolsters my stated opinion that the GOPe is simply the right wing of the Democrat party.

That's about the size of it. They fear the Tea Party more than they do Democrats. In order to maintain their power, they only have to pretend to oppose the latter.

[sinkspur]

All that money, pissed away.  What's the Tea Party got to show for all that spending?  Not a single major victory yet.

And there won't be any.  Even old Thad Cochran looks as if he'll beat McDaniel.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/205549-mcconnell-crushing-rebel-fund

[sinkspur]

Once again it's the beltway bastards against all the rest of us!

Au contraire.

It's a small group of Tea Partiers against the rest of the Republican party.  And the Tea Party, as a political force within the GOP, is becoming less and less relevant.

[jmyrlefuller]

Au contraire.

It's a small group of Tea Partiers against the rest of the Republican party.  And the Tea Party, as a political force within the GOP, is becoming less and less relevant.

Yep.

We are outnumbered. Just as the Democrats silenced us in 2012, the Republicans are silencing us in 2014. What are we to do? Elect the same Bushites who disgraced conservatism in the 2000s? You all (Democrats and Republicans) simply won't listen to reason, but you'll listen to money. How do we stop the oppression? How do we conservatives get our voice back? How are we going to defeat the weasels that have corrupted the American government and the people?

[sinkspur]

Yep.

We are outnumbered. Just as the Democrats silenced us in 2012, the Republicans are silencing us in 2014. What are we to do? Elect the same Bushites who disgraced conservatism in the 2000s? You all (Democrats and Republicans) simply won't listen to reason, but you'll listen to money. How do we stop the oppression? How do we conservatives get our voice back? How are we going to defeat the weasels that have corrupted the American government and the people?

The Republicans aren't silencing anybody. You have to be competitive, and in order to be competitive you have to put up candidates who have some credibility.

Take Matt Bevins, for instance.  He was for TARP in 2008, now he's against it.  He attends a cockfight, has no idea it is a cockfight, then defends the right of people to have cockfights.

As a result, he's a dead man walking. 

The Tea Party is going to have to do a much better job at vetting candidates.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yep.

We are outnumbered. Just as the Democrats silenced us in 2012, the Republicans are silencing us in 2014. What are we to do? Elect the same Bushites who disgraced conservatism in the 2000s? You all (Democrats and Republicans) simply won't listen to reason, but you'll listen to money. How do we stop the oppression? How do we conservatives get our voice back? How are we going to defeat the weasels that have corrupted the American government and the people?

Was the GOP just expected to hand you seats in Congress?

The problem with the whole "ideological purity over electability" mantra is that... well... you don't win elections.

There was an article posted here a week or two ago that claimed that the GOP had finally found a way to defeat the TEA Party... here's an excerpt:

PINEHURST, N.C.—On a rainy afternoon a month before North Carolina's May 6 Republican primary, state House Speaker and Senate hopeful Thom Tillis was at the Pinehurst Resort and golf course, where the U.S. Open will be held later this year. But the three-minute speech Tillis gave made him sound more like he was at the Masters, being measured for a green jacket.

At a lunch forum sponsored by the Moore (County) Republican Women, to which all of the GOP candidates were invited, Tillis was acting like a winner: He had the support of 22 state senators and 68 members of the General Assembly, he boasted; he'd just wrapped up a "great" fundraising quarter, bringing in $1.3 million over the previous three months. He saw no meaningful differences between himself and his seven opponents, except the one that mattered: "It comes down to experience and a path to beating Kay Hagan. Our goal is to beat Kay Hagan," Tillis said. "They know that we stand ready to beat them, and we're most likely the state that will deliver … a GOP majority!"

Then Tillis mentioned that a major endorsement had just come in. "Probably my proudest moment in public service happened this morning when I was driving up here," he said. "I just received the endorsement of the National Right to Life, and more than anybody else, more than any organization I can think of, I'm proud that they recognize the work that we've done to save the lives of the unborn.

On a couch in the resort's ornate reception area after the speeches, another candidate, Mark Harris, the senior pastor at Charlotte's First Baptist Church and president of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, expressed disbelief. "When he said he had the endorsement of the National Right to Life—somebody needs to check into that," Harris said. "Because we all met with the National Right to Life. I know I met with them in October, and they indicated to me that they probably would not be endorsing in the primary."

But one of Harris's strategists, Mike Rusher, who had been standing beside him scrolling through screens on his smartphone, quickly confirmed that the endorsement was real. Harris turned red and paused for a few seconds before responding. "I guess it's just an indication of the National Republican Senatorial Committee's pressure," he said. As it turned out, it was worse than that. In the press release announcing the endorsement, National Right to Life President Carol Tobias said Tillis was the "only candidate with a proven record of leadership who can defeat pro-abortion Sen. Hagan this fall."

Electability was trumping ideological purity—just as the establishment had planned.

What a moronic sentence that last one is.

What is the goal of ANY candidate in ANY election if not to be elected?

If you don't run with the goal of being elected, why the Hell are you running?

What good is all that ideological purity of you can't put it into action by winning the election?

Candidates and their supporters who put the idea of ideological purity ahead of electability and lost their races should be happy.

They got the exact results they wanted.

They remain ideologically pure and unelected.

[Carling]

They remain ideologically pure and unelected.

Their supporters are also then able to claim the moral high ground, too.  There's nothing wrong with that to me, other than seeing good people sending their money to PACs supporting candidates that won't be elected. 

[Bigun]

Their supporters are also then able to claim the moral high ground, too.  There's nothing wrong with that to me, other than seeing good people sending their money to PACs supporting candidates that won't be elected.

I would point out to you that the TEA parties (there is no single TEA party!) have had some electoral victories (certainly not as many as they would have hoped for)  and have been HIGHLY successful at their most important goal of moving the Republican party more to the right and killing bad legislation.  To say that they have not been effective is a complete misread of the situation IMHO!

[Bigun]

Au contraire.

It's a small group of Tea Partiers against the rest of the Republican party.  And the Tea Party, as a political force within the GOP, is becoming less and less relevant.

Yeah Sink! RIGHT! LOL!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yeah Sink! RIGHT! LOL!

Maybe you missed this in the article:

    Here's where things get even more interesting: If you take it a step further and combine all spending by conservative and liberal outside groups, a majority of the money spent by these kinds of groups expressly for or against a candidate -- 53.8 percent -- has been used to attack Republicans ($9.7 million from conservative groups and $13.8 million from liberal groups), while a measly 8.5 percent has been used to attack Democrats.

[Bigun]

Maybe you missed this in the article:

    Here's where things get even more interesting: If you take it a step further and combine all spending by conservative and liberal outside groups, a majority of the money spent by these kinds of groups expressly for or against a candidate -- 53.8 percent -- has been used to attack Republicans ($9.7 million from conservative groups and $13.8 million from liberal groups), while a measly 8.5 percent has been used to attack Democrats.

I saw it and recognize that is what happens in primary season! Especially when virtually ALL of the action is on the Republican side!

BTW: I thought you and I had a deal but I guess not!

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Their supporters are also then able to claim the moral high ground, too.  There's nothing wrong with that to me, other than seeing good people sending their money to PACs supporting candidates that won't be elected.

Exactly.  The country continues its downward spiral and the fringe right sit back and blame everyone but themselves.  Why wouldn't moderates change their opinions when real conservatives pursude with epitaphs like "traitor" and say "my way or the highway-no compromise."  The Tea Party conservatives did this to themselves.

They threatened GOP leadership primaries and offered clowns.  They promised a conservative wave of support for standing on principle and shutting down the government.  The results was ridicule from 75% of America.  They promised common sense appoaches to debt reduction and offered candidates who were for TARP before they were against it, definitions of legitimate rape, and witchcraft.  They set themselves at odds with both major parties and are surprised their "leadership" is spurned.

[Oceander]

Exactly.  The country continues its downward spiral and the fringe right sit back and blame everyone but themselves.  Why wouldn't moderates change their opinions when real conservatives pursude with epitaphs like "traitor" and say "my way or the highway-no compromise."  The Tea Party conservatives did this to themselves.

They threatened GOP leadership primaries and offered clowns.  They promised a conservative wave of support for standing on principle and shutting down the government.  The results was ridicule from 75% of America.  They promised common sense appoaches to debt reduction and offered candidates who were for TARP before they were against it, definitions of legitimate rape, and witchcraft.  They set themselves at odds with both major parties and are surprised their "leadership" is spurned.

Moderates and the GOP leadership are doing their fair share to throw more than enough gasoline on the fire.  If the moderates and GOP leadership think the tea partiers are such a potent threat, then they have a catastrophic lack of perspective.

'Cause quite honestly, if it's true that a GOP moderate is always better than a democrat because of the "R" instead of the "D" in Congress, then it's equally true that a tea partier is always better than a democrat because of the "R" instead of the "D" in Congress.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Carling]

Moderates and the GOP leadership are doing their fair share to throw more than enough gasoline on the fire.  If the moderates and GOP leadership think the tea partiers are such a potent threat, then they have a catastrophic lack of perspective.

'Cause quite honestly, if it's true that a GOP moderate is always better than a democrat because of the "R" instead of the "D" in Congress, then it's equally true that a tea partier is always better than a democrat because of the "R" instead of the "D" in Congress.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If the Tea Party was offering up candidates that I thought were better in a general election than what the GOPe is offering, I'd be on the Tea Party Express like it was 2009!  Instead, we get these fringe kooks who don't get tripped up on fiscal issues, but instead say something about a controversial social issue that chases away moderate voters.

[Oceander]

If the Tea Party was offering up candidates that I thought were better in a general election than what the GOPe is offering, I'd be on the Tea Party Express like it was 2009!  Instead, we get these fringe kooks who don't get tripped up on fiscal issues, but instead say something about a controversial social issue that chases away moderate voters.

fair enough, but if the contest comes down to a tea party kook and a raving democrat, whom are you going to vote for?

[Carling]

fair enough, but if the contest comes down to a tea party kook and a raving democrat, whom are you going to vote for?

The Tea Party candidate, every time. 

[Oceander]

The Tea Party candidate, every time. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

fair enough, but if the contest comes down to a tea party kook and a raving democrat, whom are you going to vote for?

If the contest came down to a tuna sandwich and a side of cucumber salad vs any Democrat, I'd vote for the tuna sandwich and cucumber salad.

[speekinout]

One big difference between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party is that the GOP establishment will always vote for the GOP candidate in the general election. The Tea Party will often not vote - which is the same as voting dim - instead of voting for a GOPer who is not pure enough. That would be just fine in states and jurisdictions where the GOP is in the majority, but in places where the vote depends on attracting some independents, the GOP candidate has to be credible and electable. The GOP establishment vets candidates to make sure they are; the Tea Party doesn't.

Since there will be a dim president for at least two more years, a GOP majority in Congress should matter more than any single issue. I don't understand people who are willing to submit to 2 more years of totalitarian dim control.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

The Tea Party candidate, every time.

Dittos.  Never vote rat.  The most unbending, right fringe Republican is less embarrassing and damaging to our country than the most conservative rat.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

One big difference between the GOP establishment and the Tea Party is that the GOP establishment will always vote for the GOP candidate in the general election. The Tea Party will often not vote - which is the same as voting dim - instead of voting for a GOPer who is not pure enough. That would be just fine in states and jurisdictions where the GOP is in the majority, but in places where the vote depends on attracting some independents, the GOP candidate has to be credible and electable. The GOP establishment vets candidates to make sure they are; the Tea Party doesn't.

Since there will be a dim president for at least two more years, a GOP majority in Congress should matter more than any single issue. I don't understand people who are willing to submit to 2 more years of totalitarian dim control.

Not only are they willing...some prefer it.  I have read such moronic statements from the right wing.  They say stuff like "no more choosing the lesser of two evils."  which means they prefer more evil.  I've read conservatives on this very forum say they would prefer a rat because the rat is open about screwing them while a RINO will stab them in the back.  which means they want to be stabbed in the front.

There are conservatives who stand so far to the right that they honestly can't see the middle, so a Susan Collins is the same as Harry Reid from their perspective.  George Wallace said there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the 2 parties and he was right from his perspective of pro-segregation.  I don't mean to paint all extremists as racists but just trying to give an example.  Another less provocative example is Barry Goldwater celebrating his extremism during a time of nuclear brinkmanship between Russia and America.  Barry said "extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."  How sophomoric.  Barry gave us a rat majority so powerful it birthed Johnson's "Great Society." Kook-burgers shooting abortion doctors in the pursuit of a right to life for the unborn has hurt the cause more than the children saved by the act.  Moderate proposals like waiting periods, parental consent, and bans on funding have saved thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands, but to Goldwater it "is no virtue."