It's not about the tea party or establishment but candidate quality

A national consultant sounded like a national consultant today in the Argus. He is right about 50% but he lays the blame on one side only. He's an NRA guy so he's not all bad. However, a lot of consultants (not all) like to blame everybody but themselves for the problems in the campaigns so they build themselves up.

“When conservatives are unhappy, bad things happen to the Republican Party.”
So wrote Richard Viguerie, the “Funding Father” of the modern conservative movement, in his 2006 book “Conservatives Betrayed.” Viguerie characterized the conservative movement as an independent “Third Force” in American politics, one that will bring the Republican Party to its knees “begging for support.” Then, George W. Bush was the enemy. Now, it’s “impure” incumbent Republican senators.
The modern conservative movement and the Republican Party have never been synonymous. But the animosity between the two has never been more self-destructive than it is today.
Many conservatives see the Republican Party as little more than “the evil of two lessers.” Couple that with their belief that pragmatism is a dirty word, and it’s little wonder that liberal and progressive leaders give thanks at the altar of the “tea party” while simultaneously crediting the movement for every problem facing our society. The irony seems lost on conservative leaders who should know better.

The thing about Republicans is that it is a big tent. Democrats do what their told. Republicans are anti-authoritarian, and not just the libertarians, business owners, and gun owners. Less government is the general core belief of the group.

"""For more than 30 years as a political consultant, I’ve helped elect Republicans to offices at all levels and enthusiastically advanced the cause of many national groups espousing conservative issues. Smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater individual freedom — all these tenets sound like the battle cry for the “tea party” when in fact they’ve stood as the modern Republican Party creed for decades. What has changed over the past several years is the assertion that if you aren’t 100 percent pure on the entire conservative agenda, you must be removed from office. Never mind that if you defeat an “impure” conservative or, heaven forbid, a moderate Republican, what you get in return is a liberal or progressive Democrat.""""

Devil's advocate. Sometimes I agree with this, but other times I don't. What if the so called "Moderate" is a Arlen Specter, Joe Schwarz, Charlie Crist, or John Stewart who are really democrats. Stewart admitted he never voted Republican for president after he switched parties officially. Schwarz backed Mark Schauer. A leftist. Specter switched because the base had enough of him (and so did the dems). Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are liberal republicans. I think Collins is great to have in Maine. That's the best we're going to get there. Plymouth didn't need a John Stewart type but a John Walsh instead. The 7th district voted for Tim Walberg over Joe Schwarz. Take the best you can get where you can win.

""Today, Harry Reid is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate for one simple reason: The “tea party.” It snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the 2012 elections by putting forth unvetted primary candidates who defeated incumbent Republicans who undoubtedly would have triumphed in the general election."""

Bullshit. I don't consider myself tea party, and still call this as bullshit. Tom, you lose your argument here. Both sides fouled up. These were election results. I'll put notable ones in bold.

In 2012, these were the results:
Arizona - Jeff Flake (center-right, some libertarian leanings) replaces Jon Kyl. - R hold
California - Feinstein wins again
Connecticut - Chris Murphy replaces Joe Lieberman. D hold. Linda McMahon was an establishment R running in a tough seat.
Delaware - Tom Carper wins again
Florida - Bill Nelson wins easily. Connie Mack was supposed to be a contender, but struck out badly. Establishment failure here. 
Hawaii - Hirono replaces Akaka. D hold.
Indiana - Gun grabber Richard Lugar loses the primary. Good. Bad however was Richard Mordouk running his mouth. Joe Donnelly won and this was a D pickup. Tea Party failure here.
Maine - Olympia Snowe retired. Angus King wins. Democrat pick up. (King's an independent, but caucuses with dems).
Maryland - Ben Cardin wins again.
Massachusetts - Scott Brown loses to Elizabeth Warren. D pickup. Straight tickets won.
Michigan - Stabenow wins easily over Pete Hoekstra. Establishment failure here. It should have been closer and Durant would have given a much better race than the (nonexistent) campaign we saw.
Minnesota - Klobuchar wins easily.
Mississippi - Wicker wins.
Missouri - Claire McCaskill hangs on. Todd Akin loses what would have been a win for his mouth. Establishment (Huckabee wing) failure here. Akin wasn't tea party. Tea party was split in the primary.  D hold.
Montana - Jon Tester hangs on against Denny Rehberg. Wasn't tea party. D hold.
Nevada - Dean Heller hangs on against Shelly Berkley. Establishment win. R hold.
New Jersey - Bob Menendez hangs on despite his issues.
New Mexico - Martin Henrich takes over for Jeff Bingaman. D hold.  Tough year there.
New York - Gillibrand wins.
North Dakota - Heidi Heitkamp upsets Rick Berg. D hold. This wasn't tea party either.
Ohio - Brown beats Josh Mandel. D Hold. This wasn't tea party either.
Pennsylvania - Maybe Tom Smith should have had more help against Bob Casey who didn't win by a margin that was expected.
Rhode Island - Whitehouse wins
Tennessee - Corker wins
Texas - Ted Cruz wins
Utah - Orrin Hatch wins
Vermont - Bernie Sanders wins
Virginia - Tim Caine beats George Allen for Jim Webb's seat. D hold. Establishment loss here.
Washington - Cantwell wins
West Virginia - Manchin wins

Wisconsin - Baldwin beats former Governor Tommy Thompson. I heard Thompson ran a very poor campaign. Establishment failure here.
Wyoming - Barrasso wins.

Tom, you can pin ONE here on the tea party. In 2010, you can pin Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle there - along with Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio's wins.

What was proven here. Tea party candidates can win. Tea party candidates can lose. Same goes for establishment candidates. Dean Heller deserves a lot of credit for his win. It wasn't easy. I'm not trying to pick on one side over another. Like Tom, I'm tired of self-enforced errors in the party. Unlike Tom, I see the big picture.

Instead of these pot sides at "establishment" or "Tea Party," both sides need to recruit candidates who can actually win. That means avoiding foot-in-mouth disease, laziness, and consultant backstabbing by announcing to the world that this person is going to lose because your favorite lost the primary (Rove).  

Karl Rove - Back the Hell off

I really don't understand how Karl Rove is considered a political genius unless it is the Wile E Coyote version of "super genius." He got lucky by 500 votes in Florida in 2000, and got lucky again that John Kerry was the worst candidate the dems could run in 2004 thanks to "The New Soldier" and his 1972 traitor speech (read the whole transcript). The only thing he really got right campaign wise was getting ballot initiatives going that drove conservative turnout. That's the one big thing I'll credit him with. When it comes to candidate strategy and issues, I think he flat out sucks.

Karl Rove was deputy Chief of Staff of Bush from 05 to 07. That is the same time trouble really started brewing for the Bush administration.

Karl Rove was 0-fer in Michigan. Lost the 2000 primary. Lost in 2000 and 2004 (and he shouldn't have lost 04). Crossroads lost here in 2012.  He also ran his mouth and did a 1/2way McCain statement here in the last election. He later said it was competitive in the last two weeks, but the earlier comment did major damage. Major. If he was the genius he claimed he was, he'd keep his mouth shut, stay off of Fox (if he's running crossroads) and do what needs to be done.

Now he's getting involved in primaries. Great. A quote from Coach Bob Knight comes to mind. "You (bleeped) it up to begin with, now just sit there or leave."  Knight was addressing a media person who misrepresented him. Rove embarrassed himself and spent a lot of political capital losing hundreds of millions of dollars from donor money and got bad results. His back is against the wall and he needs to redeem himself and his thought process. The think with these national consultants is that it is of course NEVER their own fault. It's always the fault of others. That's how they keep getting their paycheck and these hanger-ons stay around. It can't be the fault of "super genius" but it is the fault of those "tea party people."

Reality is that this year the only one I can pin on the tea party is Mourdock. Akin wasn't tea party (although some tea party backed him after the fact due to the attacks against him by Rove). Romney wasn't tea party. His election day operations are legendary bad with Project Orca. His sign policy also hurt us badly.  In 2010, you could point to Angle and O'Donnell as tea party, but this year you had establishment candidates lose too. Both sides have their good (Rob Portman, Pat Toomey) and bad (Tommy Thompson, Richard Mourdock).

From the NY Times.

The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.” 

On paper, that sounds great. On paper. The problem is American Crossroads is run by Rove. Rove's track record makes Sarah Palin's look almost perfect. 3 for 20 or 7 for 24 (I've seen different reports.) This wasn't a wave election. The other issue is this. It's not about "most conservative" or "most moderate" if you are looking for electability. That's consultant and pundit BS. It's about the right fit. Rove doesn't get the Midwest. He never has. His record here shows that. Electability starts with candidates who A. Do their job and run on that first, B. Work hard and campaign and don't act like they are talked into running or are entitled to the job. Competence comes first. Where that affect social issues is where you have "far right" or "moderate" candidates play those up to the expense of going away from "doing your job issues."

The effort would put a new twist on the Republican-vs.-Republican warfare that has consumed the party’s primary races in recent years. In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election.  

As someone who is not completely in either camp, I see a major problem here. One good friend of mind who is probably considered establishment said one of the biggest problems was Republicans bashing the hell out of each other in primaries. I'm not completely blameless here, but that was a good point mentioned. "For every attack between Santorum and Romney camps, you had votes going by default to Obama" was almost the exact quote from this individual. This person has a real point, especially after seeing the results. This Rovian stuff ain't helping matters.

As far as the "backing candidates who lose part", usually Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin are cited. Mourdock lost for saying something stupid. Akin wasn't tea party. He was establishment - Huckabee wing. He lost for saying something stupid. Saying something stupid isn't limited to "tea party" candidates. George Allen was very establishment and he lost in 06 for saying something stupid.

Iowa will be ground zero for this. 

The group’s plans, which were outlined for the first time last week in an interview with Mr. Law, call for hard-edge campaign tactics, including television advertising, against candidates whom party leaders see as unelectable and a drag on the efforts to win the Senate. Mr. Law cited Iowa as an example and said Republicans could no longer be squeamish about intervening in primary fights.

“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

King beat Christine Vilsack, a strong candidate with 7 million in backing, by 8% in a slightly R district. Now can King sell in Eastern Iowa? That's why we have primaries. On the same note, would Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist be better as R's in 2010 than Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio? NRSC supported those now democrats. NRSC supported Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. He won his primary and got his ass kicked in 2006. He also supported Obama, the 2nd worst resident of the White House in my lifetime outside of Jimmy Carter.

Grover Norquist, who leads Americans for Tax Reform, a fiscally conservative advocacy group that plays a role in Republican primary races, said he welcomed a pragmatic sense of discipline in recruiting candidates. But he said it was incorrect to suggest that candidates backed by Tea Party groups were the only ones to lose, pointing to establishment Republicans in North Dakota and Montana who also lost their races last year.

“People are imagining a problem that doesn’t exist,” Mr. Norquist said. “We’ve had people challenge the establishment guy and do swimmingly.” 

I'm not always in agreement with Norquist, but he's dead on here. Establishment candidates lost in Wisconsin and Michigan this year. Tea party candidates won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida in 2010. Tea party won Texas in 2012. Tea party lost Indiana in 2012 and lost Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado in 2010. Establishment won Nevada  in 2012 and Ohio in 2010. They were generally united in New Hampshire in 2010 and won. Good candidates are good candidates regardless of which wing of the party. Bad is bad regardless of which wing of the party. "Electable candidates" aren't such because of just ideology. That's DC thinking.

Who are the recent winners in a purple state like Wisconsin? Scott Walker and Ron Johnson. I'm sure Rove would consider them too right wing to win a Midwestern state. Tommy Thompson lost. He shouldn't have lost, but he lost, to Tammy Baldwin of all people. Here in Michigan, I personally like Pete Hoekstra. He's a good guy who unfortunately was not a good candidate. He ran for senate like he was talked into running and did so as a favor. He was the establishment pick. He won the primary underwhelmingly and we had Bouchard 2006 all over again in the general. Stabenow has a lot of soft support. There was an opening there, but the window shut quickly and it was all over before it started.

If Steven Law at Crossroads really wants to do this right and be actually pragmatic instead of being another NRSC racket (Chafee, Crist, Specter all over again), he'll need to learn the territory of these areas in depth. He'll need to talk to the experts on the group and learn from them. REAL experts - away from the DC bubble. These experts are those who understand how things work in each individual state - people that live there. If Law tells Rove and DC consultants to back off, this may work. 

If Crossroads follows Rove's lead and pushes in, you're going to see state establishments, tea parties, conservatives, and everyone up and down the line unite - AGAINST Crossroads. Why? Turf wars. Arrogance combined with ignorance. Wasting money. How? Because candidates like Steve King in Iowa will drive up the Western Iowa vote with this line "Washington DC thinks they know what is best for Iowans. Vote for me and teach Washington establishment a lesson that primaries are for Iowans." That can work in every state. 

I encourage all Republican and Conservative donors to ask themselves these things when determining which committee to support:

1. Do these people have a good track record? Take a close look. While there's always many reasons why candidates sometimes lose, if you see the same style of campaign repeatedly with the same results, a pattern emerges.

2. Do I want my money spent on 3rd parties to elect republicans being wasted attacking good republicans in primaries?  If I want that, I'd donate to the candidate itself or an issues PAC.

3. Will this committee spend my money properly? I hate wasting money. Some call me cheap, but I prefer the term frugal. It goes back to running a countywide committee on $1700 against $10K+. We won BTW.

That doesn't apply just to Crossroads and Rove, but any committee. We all need to use due diligence in our decision making in which committees deserve our support, be it establishment, tea party, or all points in between.

What is the "electable" candidate?

Every primary I hear a lot of talk from amateur hour pundits and other figures talk about how primary voters need to vote for the so called "electable" candidate. Often, electable means the pet candidate of the NRSC. Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth, called this logic out in an editorial.

In the wake of some missed opportunities to pick up seats in the U.S. Senate over the last few cycles, one tactical change floated by the GOP establishment is that the party apparatus and its affiliated Super PACs should play a more influential role in primaries to make sure that more “electable” candidates are nominated.
It is hard to imagine a bigger mistake.

I hope Jerry Moran cleans house with the administrative portion of NRSC. I'm not impressed with their record the past six years, especially.  Marco Rubio told primary voters in 2010 to pick a better establishment.

Chocola continues.

First, let’s review the Senate races where the Republicans nominated so-called “electable” establishment candidates in 2012: Denny Rehberg in Montana, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Heather Wilson in New Mexico, George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin. All were establishment favorites because they were all “electable.” All of them lost.

Berg and Thompson were the two biggest disappointments. Unfortunately Mourdock also lost, and he was Chocola's guy. He lost for the same reason Akin did. Dumbass comments.

Second, let’s review the recent history of the Republican establishment’s choices of candidates in high-profile Republican primaries against fiscal conservatives.
The names that come to mind include Dede Scozzafava, Arlen Specter, and Charlie Crist. All were supported by the Republican Party establishment as the most “electable” in their respective races. These stellar “Republican” candidates ended up either endorsing the Democratic candidate in the race or became Democrats themselves.

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/how-gop-can-avoid-next-todd-akin/#storylink=cpy

That's the big reason for a lot of major dislike these days from the base towards liberals that the media calls moderate (Bush is an actual moderate). People like Charlie Crist. These same turkeys that tell us to be team players pull this crap sometimes even if their candidate is nominated, like in 2008 and even this year in 2012. I haven't forgotten, Irish grudges and all. If I took one for the team to help Romney in the general election these same moderates and liberals need to take one for the team when a conservative is nominates. I respect Rudy Giuliani even though I don't agree with him. Rick Snyder on the other hand can go perform an unnatural act on himself.

There is a clear solution. If the GOP wants to involve itself in primaries again it should focus on supporting candidates who clearly believe in and can articulate what the Republican Party says it stands for, limited government and economic freedom. Not candidates who simply adopt whatever positions make them the most “electable.”
One of the biggest silver linings of the 2012 election is the deep Republican bench. In addition to rising stars endorsed by the Club for Growth PAC like Senators Toomey, Rubio, Cruz, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, a whole new generation of governors who support economic freedom stand ready in the wings.

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/how-gop-can-avoid-next-todd-akin/#storylink=cpy

I generally agree, but good philosophy is only one part of what is electable.When I look at an electable candidate, I look at the following:

1. Does the candidate have a history of winning tough areas?

Pat Toomey won in the Leigh Valley several times and then won statewide in Pennsylvania. He's a conservative. Heather Wilson, more moderate, won in Albuquerque. She lost this year statewide in New Mexico, but I thought she wasn't a bad candidate.

2. Does the candidate have a tendency of putting his/her foot in the mouth?

Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell. George Allen in 2006. This has nothing to do with liberal, moderate, or conservative. This is about being smart and controlling yourself. 

3. Is the candidate talked into running, or does he/she want the job?

This I thought about after this year. If you told me last year that Mr Welfare Reform, Tommy Thompson was going to lose to a Madison progressive far leftist, I'd laugh in your face. I would not have gotten the last laugh. The NRSC loves candidates who are ex=governors or establishmeent congressmen who aren't very controversial. Pete Hoekstra, Tommy Thompson, and Mike Bouchard in 2006 ran like they were talked into running. I'm not sure they really wanted the job, or at least campaign for it. Maybe Hoekstra and Bouchard (good guys, but weren't the best candidates) wouldn't have won anyway, but I didn't expect them to lost by 15-20pts. I learned a lot this year about the dangers of candidates without the fire in the belly.


4. Does the candidate have a strong base and can get that group to the polls?


Pat Toomey. Marco Rubio. Tom Coburn as a congressman winning a very conservadem seat. Hoeven as governor in North Dakota. Justin Amash and the libertarians in his district.  There are people that go to elections just to vote FOR those people more than simply generic R. 

5. Does the candidate appeal to independents? That doesn't mean "moderate" which can sometimes lead to double flanking and race skipping. A reputation of integrity, competence, and principles gain independent votes. Mike Rogers has even won Ingham County at times, even though he's a social conservative. Pat Toomey ran better than "moderates" Romney and McCain in the liberal Philly suburbs. He won Bucks County (so did Romney, although Bush lost it twice). Rubio swept Florida easily.


6. Can the candidate raise money? At least enough to win.

That doesn't mean the candidate needs to outspend the opponent, but the candidate needs to be competitive so we don't get Stabenow vs Hoekstra/Bouchard situations.

I've come to believe that philosophy doesn't mean as much to electability as tone, competence, self-control, work ethic, and message. Liberal Fred Upton wins a swing district, as does Tim Walberg and Mike Rogers. Upton isn't the jerk that Joe Schwarz is. Walberg isn't Todd Akin. Mike Pence is possibly more conservative than Mourdock. Kelly Ayotte was supported by a lot of the grass roots as well as establishment and won a swing state.

Amateur hour pundits believe than candidates need to be "moderate" to win, and they can't be further from the truth. Results show things are a lot more complicated than the ability for most beltway so called journalists to understand. 

In order to win, I think you need a specific plan (part of Romney's problem - too many platitudes and flips), be able to execute it (Orca didn't help), not be a jerk, work hard and campaign like you want the job. There's electable tea party candidates and unelectable tea party candidates. There's electable establishment candidates and unelectable establishment candidates.

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/how-gop-can-avoid-next-todd-akin/#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/how-gop-can-avoid-next-todd-

akin/#storylink=cpy<