Karl Rove vs. the Tea Party - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

A new New York Times piece details how the post-Romney Republican Establishment is pushing back against an insurgent wing that is both primarying out GOP incumbents in favor of more fiscally conservative candidates who sometimes lose, and also producing the bulk of the decaying party's interesting new talent:

 

The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate.

 

The primaries may be tougher than the general elections.

 

Thoughts?

Edited February 4, 201313 yr by marvel

I think it is a smart move by the traditional Republicans. The Tea Party and other far right interests are marginalizing the Republican Party.

I think it is a smart move by the traditional Republicans. The Tea Party and other far right interests are marginalizing the Republican Party.

Disagree. They have marginalized themselves by running marginal candidates the last 2 Presidential elections. The "traditional" Republicans that the Dems like yourself have been clamouring for have been there for you to vote for.

I was a believer in the 'early Tea Party'. Those that were for limiting or even shrinking financial Federal Government growth to reduce current or future financial burden. Remember the TEA stood for Taxed Enough Already. It seemed to be relatively unaligned at first and was truly grass roots. I was in DC during one of the rallies and saw many whole families attending who believe in the message. Obviously the majority of these early supporters were Republican or Libertarian in their pre-Tea party days.

 

Then it became a full blown splitter of the Republican party. And only participated in the Republican primaries. I think it would have been more interesting to run candidates on both sides of the two political parties but that obviously did not happen.

 

Now they have track record of not only nominating fiscally conservative candidates but ones that are more into social issues and issues that do not relate to the original concept. And some of these candidates that actually won the primaries had issues and some seemed kooky. And then instead of picking up seats in the Senate they lost some. It was a disaster for the Republican party. They should have picked up seats easily - except some of the Tea party candidates were not electable.

 

So Rove is out to keep this from happening again. Splitter groups have not been able to 'take over' a party for a long time. Though some in the Tea Party ranks think they can and they have some success I think Rove is setting a tone that the 'unelectables' are simply not going to be tolerated the next go around.

 

I would like to see the 'Tea Party' work both parties and push and support fiscally conservative candidates - regardless of party. There fiscally conservative Democrats and free-spending Republicans. It would be nice to see true independents making a run during general elections if neither major party candidate is acceptable. But that is probably wishful thinking.

I find the fiscal conservatism and non-foreign interventionist policies of the Tea Party very attractive. To me, establishment GOP are only fiscal conservatives when they are out of power! You cannot box yourself in to the point where you have no room to negotiate such as the Norquist statement of commitment to no taxation increases under any circumstances. How catastrophic would that be if we found ourself at war?

 

Issues like social issues and the hard line immigration stances are going to have to be dropped if the GOP is going to be competitive in national elections. The electorate has pretty much decided these issues and I don't think there is any going back. Budget, economy, jobs and defense should be the focus of the party. Churches need to focus on reflecting a christian image , both as congregations, and individuals, and get out of the political process.

I agree with Bluegrasscard. The TEA party became too associated with the total right-winger religious faction, and so did the entire party and that cost them many elections and the presidency. There are a lot of groups...include the Hispanics...who voted democrat last election who would have voted republican if the party positioned itself to be more moderate. I respect the position of less government is better, but IMO that includes keeping the government out of people's lives. I see the far right AND the far left both desiring to judge and determine how people live their lives. That is not consistent with my definition of freedom.

I think BGC, JO and Doomer have this pretty much correct.

Daily Kos: Don't worry, GOP establishment: Karl*Rove has got this

 

So now under the helpful guidance of Karl and his gang, the adults are going prevent the crazy children from screwing things up and they'll be generously funded by the big money donors who are finally ready take back control of their party. As a result, GOPers will start winning Senate elections again and Republicans will live happily ever after.

 

Problem is, that's a fairy tale.

 

So who is worse for the party? The Paul/DeMint's or the Bush/Rove's?

When the TEA Party first came about I had hopes that it would turn into a movement bringing the Republicans more into the Libertarian camp. It gave me hopes that one day I might actually want to associate my beliefs with those of the Republicans again. The religious right and the xenophobes however took it over in full force and drove out any possibility of that happening.

Unless the Republican Party sheds itself of the Tea Party influence, and finds a way to sieze more of the middle-ground, they will never be successful in national elections again.

Disagree. They have marginalized themselves by running marginal candidates the last 2 Presidential elections. The "traditional" Republicans that the Dems like yourself have been clamouring for have been there for you to vote for.

 

Attack and throw your labels out there. I vote for Republicans in every election. Yes, I vote for Democrats too.

 

The biggest problem with the last two Presidential candidates is they had to sell out to the far right to win the nomination and it comes back to bite them in the general election.

 

The biggest problem with the last two Presidential candidates is they had to sell out to the far right to win the nomination and it comes back to bite them in the general election.

^ THIS

Attack and throw your labels out there. I vote for Republicans in every election. Yes, I vote for Democrats too.

 

The biggest problem with the last two Presidential candidates is they had to sell out to the far right to win the nomination and it comes back to bite them in the general election.

Sell out to the "right wing"? I wish:lol:

Sell out to the "right wing"? I wish:lol:

 

Not if you want Republicans to win national elections.

Sell out to the "right wing"? I wish:lol:

 

Edit ... post duplicated.