Hostile Takeover of the Republican Party? What Should Happen Now?

The point of the Tparty is the point of the election of 94 and 06. The electorate is not ideologically bound, but is mostly interested in eliminating back room deals and government by purchase. In 94 there was the house bank, and the bribery scandals that never seemed to end. The Democrats refused to get it, and the GOP promised more open government, and delivered for a short while. In 2006 the Republicans obviously forgot the message, and they were reminded by the voters about what is truly important. And the Democrats went back on their pledges as well.
Which is why so many lost this time.

This I think is Erickson's whole point and why I used the 'hostile takeover' analogy. As he said, Mitch McConnell hasn't learned a damn thing and intends to be business as usual in the senate. When he rejected a call for a moratorium on earmarks, that said volumes. He's still in it for the benefit of Mitch McConnell which seems to be a chronic syndrome with too many of our fearless leaders.

But we do have opportunity to make some important inroads in the House and that starts with putting people into key positions who are likely to walk the walk. And it will appear to be a 'hostile takeover' to replace some of the old guard with the new visionaries.

The scandals make people roll their eyes, because scandals are always with us. Truth is, if the politicians hadn't gone a bridge too far, people would probably not be willing to listen, much less agree with tea parties. However, Bush and Obama went way too far. Bush started it with ignoring the people on 'immigration reform.' It's hard to remember further back than the economic meltdown, but before that, people were upset at being ignored no matter how many letters, emails, and phone calls were made. The legislators had the gall to leave voice mail full and not empty.

Then came the spending, then more spending, then more spending. Then Obama did with health care what Bush had done with 'immigration reform' and worse yet, forced it through. Then came the tea parties...

Now people are not rolling their eyes, they are meeting these guys as their planes land, at public forums, anywhere they can pin them. It's not the Democrats alone and it's not 'every one of those incumbents.' The electorate is focusing and voting.
 
The GOP needs to morph itself into the Tea Party or vice versa. No need for a third party, just keep replacing RINOS with conservatives.

Of course I agree, but the observation here is that the RINOs won't go without a fight. I agree that the GOP can stop the runaway train and put us back on a road to balanced budgets, full employment, and prosperity again IF they embrace the Tea Party ideals. If they return to the 'liberal light' mentality that has cost them much of their base, I really do think they'll be done and we can stick the fork in them in another two years.

It may happen, but I've many doubts. I bet they used to say that about the Whigs too.
 
So, you think your party is better off without moderates?

You mean without liberals? Pretty damn good. How's yours doing only radical leftists?

Maybe Snowe and Brown will switch parties if you all start making them feel unwelcome. Nobody would blame them with this attitude.

Hope springs eternal. Please... leave.
 
The Republicans need to remain attractive to independents and centrists otherwise they will marginalize themselves. If they follow a strong economic and fiscally conservative agenda then they will be able to do that. However, if they start traveling down the road of social conservative zeal they will eventually lose the majority.

Telling Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown that they aren't welcome will be a very foolish thing to do. They are the type of Republican that can win in that part of the country. I was born and raised in Boston. Massachusetts will never elect the kind of Republicans that get elected here in South Carolina.

I can live with their being liberal on a few of the social issues. But if they are not conservative fiscally or on things like Deathcare, they are better off gone.

The Tea Party didn't get involved in social issues other than fiscal integrity and personal liberties. They rightly saw such as not the prerogative or responsibility of the Federal government. The leftwingnuts will desperately try to keep the focus on controversial social issues. The task of the New Congress is to not get sucked into that so they can focus on economic and fiscal integrity and restoring personal liberties.

Personally, I'm tired of discussing the social agendas some on the right have that the liberals make hay out of. They'll never drop the 'gay' or 'intelligent design' memes, but then again, these were the same folks that said the 'tea parties' in '09 had a few tens at a few meet-ups and would be gone in a few months.

Now I'm not saying that another group with the core beliefs in federated government, a stronger legislature, weaker executive, and smaller government may not appear. If it does and leaves the far religious right to themselves, it would attract even more moderate Democrats.
 
Anybody who has read some USMB posts with objectivity, or who have noted the trends on other boards, know that many even lifelong Republicans have not been happy with the GOP over the last several years.

Anybody reading with objectivity now can't miss that conservative Republicans are holding the GOP's feet to the fire now and, if it is business at usual, a third party by 2012 is almost inevitable. The GOP will be done.

Eric Erickson at Redstate outlines some of the immediate issues:

Will The House GOP Break Apart the GOP-Tea Party Coalition
Erick Erickson)
Friday, November 5th

It is undisputed that the Tea Party Movement helped drive the renewed Republican momentum this past year. But for that energy, the Republicans would not have seen the gains they saw. The exit polls reflect that data.

So now the House Republicans have some crucial decisions to make. They, unlike the Senate GOP, which appears to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from their 2006defeat, are going to embrace an earmarks moratorium. Incoming Speaker Boehner. . . . announced the House will definitely have an earmarks moratorium. Mitch McConnell says no way in the Senate.

But an earmarks moratorium is only one sign that the GOP gets it in the House. It is time for some fresh faces.

Jeb Hensarling as Conference Chair is a great start given his conservative bona fides and economics based background. I am hearing today that MIchelle Bachmann wants that too, but I hope she might be pursued to go for Vice-Chair and tag team with Hensarling. Having Rep. Bachmann in that position over Cathy McZero Rogers would be a wonderful thing.

A good fit at Policy would be Dr. Tom Price. Given that healthcare helped elect Republicans, having a doctor in that position over Connie Mack, whose wife voted for Cap & Trade, would be a good sign the GOP is serious about getting us out of the Obamacare hole.

. . . . (on the). . . .Appropriations Committee. Jerry Lewis is term limited. They should give him no waiver and consider instead someone like Jack Kingston. The alternative would probably be someone like Harold Rogers of Kentucky, who would not, given his record, be a good shift right from Lewis. Likewise, Kingston is the only man on the committee who, as an Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, delivered a balanced budget, or one in surplus.

But that’s not enough. With new seats open, tea party backed members like Jeff Flake, Tom Graves, and others should have seats on the Appropriations Committee.

Then, of course, there is the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I do not believe in Committee waivers, which means Joe Barton should not be allowed to stick around.

Unfortunately, Fred Upton is lobbying heavily for the seat and that choice would be absolutely atrocious. Upton is a union lackey. . . .

Will The House GOP Break Apart the GOP-Tea Party Coalition | RedState

So major gains in the House and Senate aren't enough. If they don't keep the Tea Party coalition intact and let them do the work--if they keep the old guard GOP in chairmanships--it will quickly revert to the status quo and we won't have moved any closer to the ideals we hope for.

This is going to be interesting to watch though.

he's right. I've been saying the same since Armey & Gingrich, then Palin tried to co-opt. Not going to happen. It's more like Tuesday was an intervention on the policies of the past 10 years in particular and the 20+ years before in general. I don't want to hear about Clinton surpluses or Reagan's cuts, neither were real.

Armey and Gingrich accomplished a lot of good but neither are really small government guys, and neither stuck around to see the completion of reform in progress. Those who replaced them were more of the old guard who went back to politics as usual. They got the benefit of the doubt at first just as Obama and company did. But they disappointed the largest part of their base just as Obama and company have done. The GOP who were out of tune with the people were ousted in 2006. The process of ousting Obama and company began on November 2.

Palin doesn't belong in the loop except as a cheerleader for Tea Party principles and she has filled that role more than competently. At all levels of national and state governments that she endorsed, she enjoys about a 70% success rate and those who lost aren't complaining that she was the reason they did. Palin isn't in charge of anything and has no elected power to do anything. She is a volunteer spokesperson for an idea or ideal of restoring sanity, accountability, and responsibility to government. And I hope she stays firmly in that role through the first months of next year when we will find out if we elected the kind of people we thought we were putting into office.
 
Not sure I understand.

The GOP has been anti gay, anti black, anti education, anti women's rights, pro war, pro religion, anti government for years and years. They have always been pro big business and against the middle class. They have never liked the poor, not even their own.

What has changed? Doesn't seem terribly different to me. Just more vocal about what it doesn't like. In a way, that makes it more honest if anything.
 
Well you got the you don't understand part right rdean. You would have been way ahead if you had stopped right there.
 
Anybody who has read some USMB posts with objectivity, or who have noted the trends on other boards, know that many even lifelong Republicans have not been happy with the GOP over the last several years.

Anybody reading with objectivity now can't miss that conservative Republicans are holding the GOP's feet to the fire now and, if it is business at usual, a third party by 2012 is almost inevitable. The GOP will be done.

Eric Erickson at Redstate outlines some of the immediate issues:



So major gains in the House and Senate aren't enough. If they don't keep the Tea Party coalition intact and let them do the work--if they keep the old guard GOP in chairmanships--it will quickly revert to the status quo and we won't have moved any closer to the ideals we hope for.

This is going to be interesting to watch though.

he's right. I've been saying the same since Armey & Gingrich, then Palin tried to co-opt. Not going to happen. It's more like Tuesday was an intervention on the policies of the past 10 years in particular and the 20+ years before in general. I don't want to hear about Clinton surpluses or Reagan's cuts, neither were real.

Armey and Gingrich accomplished a lot of good but neither are really small government guys, and neither stuck around to see the completion of reform in progress. Those who replaced them were more of the old guard who went back to politics as usual. They got the benefit of the doubt at first just as Obama and company did. But they disappointed the largest part of their base just as Obama and company have done. The GOP who were out of tune with the people were ousted in 2006. The process of ousting Obama and company began on November 2.

Palin doesn't belong in the loop except as a cheerleader for Tea Party principles and she has filled that role more than competently. At all levels of national and state governments that she endorsed, she enjoys about a 70% success rate and those who lost aren't complaining that she was the reason they did. Palin isn't in charge of anything and has no elected power to do anything. She is a volunteer spokesperson for an idea or ideal of restoring sanity, accountability, and responsibility to government. And I hope she stays firmly in that role through the first months of next year when we will find out if we elected the kind of people we thought we were putting into office.

Both Armey and Gingrich are traditional GOP guys. They attempted to take over the tea parties and meld them into the GOP, didn't work as the primaries illustrated. There is no party to co-opt, there's a movement. They tried to herd cats and make money off a 'big' tea party, with large speaking fees. Few came. No surprise. Better luck on state capital steps.

Palin is an opportunist and someday I really would love to hear how the hell McCain found her. She 'volunteers?' Since when? She's gotten rich after running for VP in leather, throwing platitudes to the extreme far right and then quitting mid-term as governor and becoming a money making machine for herself. Has she been pummeled by the left? Undoubtedly, however it's hard to think she minds as long as they keep her name out there.
 
Well you got the you don't understand part right rdean. You would have been way ahead if you had stopped right there.

I love the way you guys answer back with the sound of crickets.

If I'm wrong, say why, but don't say that gays are welcome into the Republican Party or the GOP is pro women's rights. It wouldn't be true. We all know that for a fact.

This is why I think the Teabag Party is more honest.
 
he's right. I've been saying the same since Armey & Gingrich, then Palin tried to co-opt. Not going to happen. It's more like Tuesday was an intervention on the policies of the past 10 years in particular and the 20+ years before in general. I don't want to hear about Clinton surpluses or Reagan's cuts, neither were real.

Armey and Gingrich accomplished a lot of good but neither are really small government guys, and neither stuck around to see the completion of reform in progress. Those who replaced them were more of the old guard who went back to politics as usual. They got the benefit of the doubt at first just as Obama and company did. But they disappointed the largest part of their base just as Obama and company have done. The GOP who were out of tune with the people were ousted in 2006. The process of ousting Obama and company began on November 2.

Palin doesn't belong in the loop except as a cheerleader for Tea Party principles and she has filled that role more than competently. At all levels of national and state governments that she endorsed, she enjoys about a 70% success rate and those who lost aren't complaining that she was the reason they did. Palin isn't in charge of anything and has no elected power to do anything. She is a volunteer spokesperson for an idea or ideal of restoring sanity, accountability, and responsibility to government. And I hope she stays firmly in that role through the first months of next year when we will find out if we elected the kind of people we thought we were putting into office.

Both Armey and Gingrich are traditional GOP guys. They attempted to take over the tea parties and meld them into the GOP, didn't work as the primaries illustrated. There is no party to co-opt, there's a movement. They tried to herd cats and make money off a 'big' tea party, with large speaking fees. Few came. No surprise. Better luck on state capital steps.

Palin is an opportunist and someday I really would love to hear how the hell McCain found her. She 'volunteers?' Since when? She's gotten rich after running for VP in leather, throwing platitudes to the extreme far right and then quitting mid-term as governor and becoming a money making machine for herself. Has she been pummeled by the left? Undoubtedly, however it's hard to think she minds as long as they keep her name out there.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Gingrich was no supporter of Palin and in fact quite critical of her Tea Party endorsements on more than one occasion. For instance he wanted Delaware to put Castle up as the GOP nominee as Castle was popular with the Left and ANY Republican is preferable to ANY Democrat. Palin and the rest of us Tea Partiers disagreed. For too long we have acquiesed to bad candidates on the theory any Republican was better than any Democrat. And all we got was a slower road to bigger and more intrusive government without addressing or just giving lip service to the real concerns. We now are looking for candidates who will pledge to walk the walk and do government differently.

I accept that you don't like Sarah Palin. But I admire her. No way would I have been strong enough to stand up to all the pure hatred, and malicious crap the media and the Left have thrown at her but she not only stood up to it but emerged stronger than ever. And my hat is off to all the other strong, smart conservative women and minorities who succeeded in this election.

I'm beginning to have hope they really might be able to stop the runaway train and get us back on track.
 
I think about 40% of voters don't really care about ideology much. What they care about is that the politician be what they say they are. So what the electorate wants is someone who will take a position and argue it. They may not agree, but they will support a politician with an idea over a politician who trims and wobbles.

The problem with Rinos and Blue dogs is they say they are one thing, but are mostly another. Voters want a politician who will vote as they told the electorate they would before the election. This explains the death of Rinos. They talk fiscal conservatism, but they spend like drunken sailors. This explains what happened to the Blue dogs last time. They talked about rational spending, balanced budgets and open government, and voted for the health care bills and the stimulus.

Voters these days do seem to dislike bigots of any stripe, and the Republican party has just a few too many folks who are too involved in other people's bedrooms. Fiscal conservatism is a winner. The other stuff does seem a major turn off. Not just because it is blue noses in the wrong place, but the whole discussion is squicky.
 
I think about 40% of voters don't really care about ideology much. What they care about is that the politician be what they say they are. So what the electorate wants is someone who will take a position and argue it. They may not agree, but they will support a politician with an idea over a politician who trims and wobbles.

The problem with Rinos and Blue dogs is they say they are one thing, but are mostly another. Voters want a politician who will vote as they told the electorate they would before the election. This explains the death of Rinos. They talk fiscal conservatism, but they spend like drunken sailors. This explains what happened to the Blue dogs last time. They talked about rational spending, balanced budgets and open government, and voted for the health care bills and the stimulus.

Voters these days do seem to dislike bigots of any stripe, and the Republican party has just a few too many folks who are too involved in other people's bedrooms. Fiscal conservatism is a winner. The other stuff does seem a major turn off. Not just because it is blue noses in the wrong place, but the whole discussion is squicky.

I agree with keeping their actions in line with campaign rhetoric. I do think that the motivated voters last week have very definite ideas of what they want the legislature to do:

* stop spiraling spending of new programs and entitlements
* start actual reductions in spending, a 5% across the board would be a start. Then start the necessary and obvious cuts.
* get the federal government out of fields that should be handled by the states or privately.
* end intimidation through possible regulations and tax increases.
* stop the calling in of IRS to investigate organizations and individuals voicing opposition to the administration.

What they do not want is witch hunts on personal issues. They don't want the continual campaigns. To the consternation of the far right and the denial by the far left, they do not want the persecution of minorities, legal immigrants, they do not want religion taught in public schools or loyalty pledges. They don't give a fig of who sleeps with who, in fact keep the government out of the bedrooms.
 
I think about 40% of voters don't really care about ideology much. What they care about is that the politician be what they say they are. So what the electorate wants is someone who will take a position and argue it. They may not agree, but they will support a politician with an idea over a politician who trims and wobbles.

The problem with Rinos and Blue dogs is they say they are one thing, but are mostly another. Voters want a politician who will vote as they told the electorate they would before the election. This explains the death of Rinos. They talk fiscal conservatism, but they spend like drunken sailors. This explains what happened to the Blue dogs last time. They talked about rational spending, balanced budgets and open government, and voted for the health care bills and the stimulus.

Voters these days do seem to dislike bigots of any stripe, and the Republican party has just a few too many folks who are too involved in other people's bedrooms. Fiscal conservatism is a winner. The other stuff does seem a major turn off. Not just because it is blue noses in the wrong place, but the whole discussion is squicky.

Teabaggers want politicians who will be what they say they are

So they voted for people who run away from their past positions, like Rand Paul (Civil Rights Act), Boehner (who was responsible for much of the runaway spending), O'Donnel (I am not a witch), Angle ("That is not what I meant"), Palin (her AIP connections), Armey (and his lobbyist connections) and on and on.
 
I think about 40% of voters don't really care about ideology much. What they care about is that the politician be what they say they are. So what the electorate wants is someone who will take a position and argue it. They may not agree, but they will support a politician with an idea over a politician who trims and wobbles.

The problem with Rinos and Blue dogs is they say they are one thing, but are mostly another. Voters want a politician who will vote as they told the electorate they would before the election. This explains the death of Rinos. They talk fiscal conservatism, but they spend like drunken sailors. This explains what happened to the Blue dogs last time. They talked about rational spending, balanced budgets and open government, and voted for the health care bills and the stimulus.

Voters these days do seem to dislike bigots of any stripe, and the Republican party has just a few too many folks who are too involved in other people's bedrooms. Fiscal conservatism is a winner. The other stuff does seem a major turn off. Not just because it is blue noses in the wrong place, but the whole discussion is squicky.

I agree with keeping their actions in line with campaign rhetoric. I do think that the motivated voters last week have very definite ideas of what they want the legislature to do:

* stop spiraling spending of new programs and entitlements
* start actual reductions in spending, a 5% across the board would be a start. Then start the necessary and obvious cuts.
* get the federal government out of fields that should be handled by the states or privately.
* end intimidation through possible regulations and tax increases.
* stop the calling in of IRS to investigate organizations and individuals voicing opposition to the administration.

What they do not want is witch hunts on personal issues. They don't want the continual campaigns. To the consternation of the far right and the denial by the far left, they do not want the persecution of minorities, legal immigrants, they do not want religion taught in public schools or loyalty pledges. They don't give a fig of who sleeps with who, in fact keep the government out of the bedrooms.

It's hard to keep ones actions in line with ones' rhetoric when one's rhetoric is all over the map the way the Teabaggers' candidates' has been

Case in point:

Sharon Angle Nevada GOP candidate for US Senate:

Said she wants to privatize Veterans Affairs, here is the Interview below. Angle: I never said I wanted to privatize the VA -- but, of course, she did - Politics: Ralston's Flash - Las Vegas Sun
Angle: … And my father did the same thing. He calls it his rocking chair pay but he doesn’t live on his social security, he has investments that he has made over the years in rental properties and things like that—that are actually paying for his retirement. He needs more and more supervised care. He’s 87 years old and has Parkinson’s and we have to pay more and more for his healthcare. I know he pays over 800 dollars a month in prescription drugs that we can’t get through his VA nor through Medicare—they just wont cover those things. And I know lots of seniors—

Becker: Should they cover those things?

Angle: No, not if you’re working towards a privatized system.

Rand Paul claims to have support of Sheriffs in Kentucky. They say no, he doesn’t! Sheriffs deny Paul claim of support

“The sheriffs — Kevin Johnson of Clay County and Gus Skinner of McCreary County — are both Republicans from southeastern Kentucky.

They told The Associated Press that they haven’t endorsed anyone although a Paul campaign press release issued this week says they are among 10 current or incoming sheriffs declaring public support for the tea party favorite.”

Throughout her campaign for U.S. Senate in Nevada, GOP candidate and tea party favorite Sharron Angle has railed against government intervention in just about everything. Angle said she wants to “personalize” Social Security, and she even went so far as to suggest the possibility of an armed insurrection against the U.S. government to protect “against a tyrannical government.” Part of Angle’s anti-government philosophy has also included health care. She wants to repeal the new health care law and recently attacked mandating coverage for autism and maternity leave. She even suggested that Medicare and VA coverage work “towards a privatized system.”

But when reporters started asking her about these things, she ran away from the press and hid
 
I think about 40% of voters don't really care about ideology much. What they care about is that the politician be what they say they are. So what the electorate wants is someone who will take a position and argue it. They may not agree, but they will support a politician with an idea over a politician who trims and wobbles.

The problem with Rinos and Blue dogs is they say they are one thing, but are mostly another. Voters want a politician who will vote as they told the electorate they would before the election. This explains the death of Rinos. They talk fiscal conservatism, but they spend like drunken sailors. This explains what happened to the Blue dogs last time. They talked about rational spending, balanced budgets and open government, and voted for the health care bills and the stimulus.

Voters these days do seem to dislike bigots of any stripe, and the Republican party has just a few too many folks who are too involved in other people's bedrooms. Fiscal conservatism is a winner. The other stuff does seem a major turn off. Not just because it is blue noses in the wrong place, but the whole discussion is squicky.

Damn and I can't rep you until I spread it around some more. :)

But you pretty well nailed it. The leftwingnuts are doing their damndest to link the Tea Partiers to the right wing extremists, but the Tea Partiers have never been that. The Tea Partiers have religiously avoided getting entangled in controversial social issues, and those candidates that chose to include such in their campaigns, against examples in the Tea Party principles, almost all lost their elections.

But your point is well taken that too many of the Blue Dogs and the RINOs talk one game while campaigning, and then vote much differently. And the Tea Partiers aren't going to endorse somebody like that any more than they are going to endorse extremist wingnuts from either party.
 

Forum List

Back
Top