Politico: Tea Party, Down But Not Out, Plans 2016 Comeback

[massadvj]

There is nothing wrong with fighting the incumbents in your own party - that is actually a very GOOD thing!  It cleanses the party of old dusty cobwebs that have hung in the corners for far too long.  As a tea partier, I want to see some of these incumbents replaced with new blood and new thinking.  It is my hope that by doing so, we can update the party and infuse it with some passion and new ideals - those being of limiting government. 

Just because someone is an incumbent doesn't give them rights to hold that seat for the rest of their life.  If we can fight them and win - hooray!  If we try to fight them and still lose - better luck next time.  We must never give up - we must never be cowed by pressure or intimidation.  That is the beauty of freedom. 

Another thing - we do not fight our own party harder than we do the Democrats!  That is why we are members of the Republican party - because we recognize that is the only way we can defeat them!  It is not wrong to fight for change within - it actually strengthens and tempers the party.

 

Let me add one thing to your brilliant post, and that is this:

Conservatives, whether they be called Tea Party or anything else, far outnumber moderates withing the ranks of the GOP.  And that is why no candidate for president will ever win the primaries running as a moderate.  Moderates must run pretending to be conservatives to win, whereas when was the last time we saw a conservative moderating his position in order to better position himself for primary voters?  So don't buy this BS that we are in the minority.  We aren't.

In fact, most of the Republicans elected to congress this year are CONSERVATIVES, another dirty little secret the GOPe isn't advertising.

[Bigun]

Let me add one thing to your brilliant post, and that is the:

Conservatives, whether they be called Tea Party or anything else, far outnumber moderates withing the ranks of the GOP.  And that is why no candidate for president will ever win the primaries running as a moderate.  Moderates must run pretending to be conservatives to win, whereas when was the last time we saw a conservative moderating his position in order to better position himself for primary voters?  So don't by this BS that we are in the minority.  We aren't.

In fact, most of the Republicans elected to congress this year are CONSERVATIVES, another dirty little secret the GOPe isn't advertising.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Let me add one thing to your brilliant post, and that is the:

Conservatives, whether they be called Tea Party or anything else, far outnumber moderates withing the ranks of the GOP.  And that is why no candidate for president will ever win the primaries running as a moderate.  Moderates must run pretending to be conservatives to win, whereas when was the last time we saw a conservative moderating his position in order to better position himself for primary voters?  So don't by this BS that we are in the minority.  We aren't.

In fact, most of the Republicans elected to congress this year are CONSERVATIVES, another dirty little secret the GOPe isn't advertising.

Then why are conservatives not in control of the GOP?

Why is it then that polls show Romney, Bush, Christie and Huckabee (no conservative there) at 51% support among GOP voters for potential presidential candidate, with everyone else adding up to 49%?

I don't recall Romney "pretending to be a conservative" during his run. He is VERY MUCH a social conservative and pretty good with fiscal policies. He was attacked for items in his record by conservatives where conservatives mostly ran people with little or no records and whose image can be easily crafted by image makers with few worries about dealing with actual performance in office.

Someone in advertising told me that.

With Ted Cruz, questions will be "what will you do?" allowing him to wax on about goals, where with Jeb, Christie, Romney and even the Huckster questions will be "why did you do?" forcing them to defend the realities of governing and attacking them where any sign of impurity can be pointed to, or even fabricated.

That's why most ideologically driven candidates tend to be fresh faces with low levels of actual governance in their resume.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There is nothing wrong with fighting the incumbents in your own party - that is actually a very GOOD thing!  It cleanses the party of old dusty cobwebs that have hung in the corners for far too long.  As a tea partier, I want to see some of these incumbents replaced with new blood and new thinking.  It is my hope that by doing so, we can update the party and infuse it with some passion and new ideals - those being of limiting government. 

Just because someone is an incumbent doesn't give them rights to hold that seat for the rest of their life.  If we can fight them and win - hooray!  If we try to fight them and still lose - better luck next time.  We must never give up - we must never be cowed by pressure or intimidation.  That is the beauty of freedom. 

Another thing - we do not fight our own party harder than we do the Democrats!  That is why we are members of the Republican party - because we recognize that is the only way we can defeat them!  It is not wrong to fight for change within - it actually strengthens and tempers the party.

 

In 2014 Democrats ceded 32 districts without a fight. My House District ran unopposed.

A nascent movement gaining in numbers by shifting political seats in places where there once were no chances of that happening is looking to yield real power.

[Bigun]

Then why are conservatives not in control of the GOP?

Why is it then that polls show Romney, Bush, Christie and Huckabee (no conservative there) at 51% support among GOP voters for potential presidential candidate, with everyone else adding up to 49%?

I don't recall Romney "pretending to be a conservative" during his run. He is VERY MUCH a social conservative and pretty good with fiscal policies. He was attacked for items in his record by conservatives where conservatives mostly ran people with little or no records and whose image can be easily crafted by image makers with few worries about dealing with actual performance in office.

Someone in advertising told me that.

With Ted Cruz, questions will be "what will you do?" allowing him to wax on about goals, where with Jeb, Christie, Romney and even the Huckster questions will be "why did you do?" forcing them to defend the realities of governing and attacking them where any sign of impurity can be pointed to, or even fabricated.

That's why most ideologically driven candidates tend to be fresh faces with low levels of actual governance in their resume.

Because the K street masters of the GOP  will not allow it.  Nothing more than that! The only time conservative are needed is on election day! After that they can and must be dispensed with until the next election.

[truth_seeker]

Because the K street masters of the GOP  will not allow it.  Nothing more than that! The only time conservative are needed is on election day! After that they can and must be dispensed with until the next election.

Would you name the specific "K street masters," for a few districts that you know and understand. I mean actual names of people and organizations, and the officeholders.

Then give us a count, of the actual number of jobs in the district and beyond.

I'll use your home state as an example, so the readers get an idea about this particular topic. Oil & gas, and supporting service industries.

You and others continually disparage the "GOPe," the "establish" and the "Chamber of Commerce."

It is not much of a stretch to liken those who decry the "establishment" today, to the 70s hippies that were for tearing down the establishment.

If I lived in Texas, I would expect my Congresscritter, mayors, Governors would be in favor of the oil business, and the tens of thousands of jobs tied to it.

So do all the anti-establishment Tea Party advocates like the K street oil industry relationships, or not?

You could repeat that little story, many times over, for the important industries and employers the nation over.

So which American jobs do you want to disparage, next? Computer jobs? Entertainment jobs? Agriculture jobs? Transportation jobs? Defense and aerospace jobs?

They all have their K street relationships, too. And in turn many people's employment is tied to the success of those relationships.

[mountaineer]

If only some Republicans here would fight the Democrats as strenuously as they oppose the tea party ...

[Bigun]

Would you name the specific "K street masters," for a few districts that you know and understand. I mean actual names of people and organizations, and the officeholders.

Then give us a count, of the actual number of jobs in the district and beyond.

I'll use your home state as an example, so the readers get an idea about this particular topic. Oil & gas, and supporting service industries.

You and others continually disparage the "GOPe," the "establish" and the "Chamber of Commerce."

It is not much of a stretch to liken those who decry the "establishment" today, to the 70s hippies that were for tearing down the establishment.

If I lived in Texas, I would expect my Congresscritter, mayors, Governors would be in favor of the oil business, and the tens of thousands of jobs tied to it.

So do all the anti-establishment Tea Party advocates like the K street oil industry relationships, or not?

You could repeat that little story, many times over, for the important industries and employers the nation over.

So which American jobs do you want to disparage, next? Computer jobs? Entertainment jobs? Agriculture jobs? Transportation jobs? Defense and aerospace jobs?

They all have their K street relationships, too. And in turn many people's employment is tied to the success of those relationships.

No I will not supply you with the names of the specific K street masters I speak of!

The 536 people who serve in Washington are there to serve the people, ALL of them, not just those who who have the ability to buy the favors that are being sold in order finance their next election.

[Carling]

If only some Republicans here would fight the Democrats as strenuously as they oppose the tea party ...

I oppose bad candidates, as well as dumb ideas.

Yet I still would have voted for a Sharon Angle, or a Todd Akin, simply because I am 100% never voting for a Demcrat.

I still would vote for the fools who last week made their "oust Boehner" procedural power play, failed, and then had the audacity (or is it naivete'?) to complain when the House leadership put them in the corner labeled "Irrelevancy."  Even with the whining, Boehner has reached out to them, as even a few of those who voted against him had to admit.

If you're going to make power plays, be it by running against Dems or running against the "GOPe," it's best to get organized first.  Otherwise, it's hard for me to take today's so-called "tea party" seriously.  I like big tents and consolidated bases of power, though, so I can quickly move on and invite smaller conservative factions to join the fight against Obama when it's time.  And right now ... IT'S TIME. 

[massadvj]

I don't recall Romney "pretending to be a conservative" during his run.

Romney went from pro-choice to pro-life to run for president.  The one key issue that propelled him above Rick Perry in 2012 was when he made a big deal out of Perry charging in-state tuition to illegals, whereas Romney vetoed that legislation in his state. 

In his speeches, Romney uses the term "conservative principles" whenever he can slip it in.  I have never heard him refer to himself as a moderate or claim to be guided by "moderate principles." 

[Carling]

The 536 people who serve in Washington are there to serve the people, ALL of them, not just those who who have the ability to buy the favors that are being sold in order finance their next election.

I suppose I see things differently.  Maybe because I'm still a believer in states' rights?  Anyhow, I still cling to the outdated notion that each House rep first and foremost should serve those in their district who voted them into office, and that each senator should represent their state first as well.

Why even have districts and states if every DC politician is supposed to represent ALL people at a federal level?  Let's just get rid of congress, if that's the idea.

[mystery-ak]

I oppose bad candidates, as well as dumb ideas.

Yet I still would have voted for a Sharon Angle, or a Todd Akin, simply because I am 100% never voting for a Demcrat.

I still would vote for the fools who last week made their "oust Boehner" procedural power play, failed, and then had the audacity (or is it naivete'?) to complain when the House leadership put them in the corner labeled "Irrelevancy."  Even with the whining, Boehner has reached out to them, as even a few of those who voted against him had to admit.

If you're going to make power plays, be it by running against Dems or running against the "GOPe," it's best to get organized first.  Otherwise, it's hard for me to take today's so-called "tea party" seriously.  I like big tents and consolidated bases of power, though, so I can quickly move on and invite smaller conservative factions to join the fight against Obama when it's time.  And right now ... IT'S TIME.

Great post imho...

[truth_seeker]

No I will not supply you with the names of the specific K street masters I speak of!

The 536 people who serve in Washington are there to serve the people, ALL of them, not just those who who have the ability to buy the favors that are being sold in order finance their next election.

Then you would surely wish to do away with all lobbyists, and do away entirely with the Chamber of Commerce.

But alas, in history the interests of cattlemen and sheepherders, railroad interests, of oil & gas interests, water interests, and farm interests, forestry interests, military bases, of various COMPETING interests come into conflict.

I will speculate this was the case when humans first gathered into groups, and behaved in civilized manners. It evolved and became politics. The King, Chieftain, Emperor would listen to advocates for competing viewpoints, and decide.

Later the Legislatures would listen to competing viewpoints, and decide.  It is naïve and childlike to pretend that reality is other than what reality is.

[Bigun]

Then you would surely wish to do away with all lobbyists, and do away entirely with the Chamber of Commerce.

But alas, in history the interests of cattlemen and sheepherders, railroad interests, of oil & gas interests, water interests, and farm interests, forestry interests, military bases, of various COMPETING interests come into conflict.

I will speculate this was the case when humans first gathered into groups, and behaved in civilized manners. It evolved and became politics. The King, Chieftain, Emperor would listen to advocates for competing viewpoints, and decide.

Later the Legislatures would listen to competing viewpoints, and decide.  It is naïve and childlike to pretend that reality is other than what reality is.

I have no problem with Lobbyist or The Camber of Commerce per se! What I have a problem with is their ability given them by the current system to BUY the votes of those who are supposed to be representing their constituents rather than themselves!

[Bigun]

I suppose I see things differently.  Maybe because I'm still a believer in states' rights?  Anyhow, I still cling to the outdated notion that each House rep first and foremost should serve those in their district who voted them into office, and that each senator should represent their state first as well.

Why even have districts and states if every DC politician is supposed to represent ALL people at a federal level?  Let's just get rid of congress, if that's the idea.

Well then would you join me in supporting the repeal of the 17th amendment and allow the legislatures of the several states to retake control of those who would represent them in the senate!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Romney went from pro-choice to pro-life to run for president.  The one key issue that propelled him above Rick Perry in 2012 was when he made a big deal out of Perry charging in-state tuition to illegals, whereas Romney vetoed that legislation in his state. 

In his speeches, Romney uses the term "conservative principles" whenever he can slip it in. I have never heard him refer to himself as a moderate or claim to be guided by "moderate principles."

In other words, he never labeled himself a moderate. I don't label myself as such, but others want to label me that.

His religion is based on very conservative principles. His fiscal ideas and management abilities are probably by far the best in the field of possible candidates with a proven track record, with Jeb and Christie not far behind.

I don't place a tremendous amount of weight on where a Presidential candidate stands on the issue of abortion. We've had several strong pro-life Presidents since Roe, and none have been able to impact the issue to any meaningful degree.

My own thoughts on the issue of abortion have evolved over the years. Personally, as a matter of public policy I am a Federalist on that issue as I am on many others. As a matter of personal opinion what my thoughts are on the subject are between me and my Creator.

I am fine with Romney having signed Romneycare into law because I believe that the people of Massachusetts get to decide what they want from the government of Massachusetts. In fact, the overall principle behind Romneycare was Federalism and that is as conservative as you can get. The law enjoyed overwhelming public support (84%), was drafted by a bipartisan committee, passed by a 98% vote of the State House and 100% of the State Senate.

If Obamacare enjoyed 84% support from the people of the US, was crafted by a bipartisan committee, ot 98% of the House vote and 100% of the Senate vote, Obamacare should have been enacted. What was/is wrong with Obamacare is that it was the diametrical opposite of Romneycare.

[Carling]

Well then would you join me in supporting the repeal of the 17th amendment and allow the legislatures of the several states to retake control of those who would represent them in the senate!

No, I won't, because it would be a waste of my time in terms of actually accomplishing anything.  I'm not big on symbolic action.  I prefer tangible results.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I suppose I see things differently.  Maybe because I'm still a believer in states' rights?  Anyhow, I still cling to the outdated notion that each House rep first and foremost should serve those in their district who voted them into office, and that each senator should represent their state first as well.

Why even have districts and states if every DC politician is supposed to represent ALL people at a federal level?  Let's just get rid of congress, if that's the idea.

Today's notion (from both politicians and voters alike)  that people are elected to public office to go serve and fight for an ideology is fundamentally what is wrong with DC.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, I won't, because it would be a waste of my time in terms of actually accomplishing anything. I'm not big on symbolic action.  I prefer tangible results.

My brother from another mother.

[Carling]

In other words, he never labeled himself a moderate. I don't label myself as such, but others want to label me that.

I'll label myself as a GOP moderate, but a GOP fiscal conservative/social libertarian is probably most accurate.  I want government out of the business of legislating morality, outside of obvious criminal conduct that has real-world victims, and not imaginary children who apparently are scarred for life after having to grow up watching gay people kiss on a TV show.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'll label myself as a GOP moderate, but a GOP fiscal conservative/social libertarian is probably most accurate.  I want government out of the business of legislating morality, outside of obvious criminal conduct that has real-world victims, and not imaginary children who apparently are scarred for life after having to grow up watching gay people kiss on a TV show.

We should date.

 

[Carling]

My brother from another mother.

I'll add that I agree with Bigun's POV on that issue, though.  It just would take so much time, energy, and effort that it simply isn't worth it, because it will never happen.  There are much better ways to defeat Obama, and then whoever else the Dems run in 2016.

It's called my "Vote for the Republican at all times" strategy.  It's easy, it's effective, and it's fine to have internal conflict in the GOP during primary season.  After the primaries, though, defeating Democrats should be the first, second, third, and 1000th priority on election day.   

[Bigun]

No, I won't, because it would be a waste of my time in terms of actually accomplishing anything.  I'm not big on symbolic action.  I prefer tangible results.

So anything that's really difficult and worth doing is a waste of your time if the result isn't tangible and immediate. OK! So be it!

[Carling]

So anything that's really difficult and worth doing is a waste of your time if the result isn't tangible and immediate. OK! So be it!

No, that's not what I meant at all.

Think "choose your battles wisely," and you're on the right track of understanding how I view changing any type of institutionalized establishment and power structure.   

[Bigun]

No, that's not what I meant at all.

Think "choose your battles wisely," and you're on the right track of understanding how I view changing any type of institutionalized establishment.   

That is good to know and I do understand your position. I happen to believe that you will never get what you never ask for!