One of the reasons the Democrats and media are working so hard to drive a wedge between the “establishment” GOP and the Tea Party is that the Tea Party wins elections and, more importantly, represents the real future of the GOP.
Haley, a little-known state senator before being elected governor, would never have had a chance at becoming governor against the state’s good ol’ boy network of statewide officeholders. Scott would have been a long shot in his Republican primary against none other than Strom Thurmond’s youngest son. Marco Rubio, now the hyped 2016 presidential favorite, would have stepped aside to see now-Democrat Charlie Crist become the next senator, depriving the party of one of its most talented stars. Ted Cruz, the other Hispanic Republican in the Senate, would have never chanced a seemingly futile bid against Texas’s 67-year-old lieutenant governor, seen as a lock to succeed Kay Bailey Hutchison.
But all those upset victories–all of which at the time seemed shocking–took place because of the conservative grassroots’ strong sentiment for outsiders who campaigned on their principles, and not over their past political or family connections. Even a decade ago, party officials would have been more successful in pushing these outsider candidates aside, persuading them to wait their turn. (In Rubio’s case, it almost worked.) Now, in an era where grassroots politicking is as easy as ever thanks to the proliferation of social media, more control is in the hands of voters. And contrary to the ugly stereotypes of conservative activists being right-wing to the point of racist, it’s been the tea party movement that’s been behind the political success of most prominent minority Republican officeholders.
That, of course, is not the current left and media (ptr) narrative about the Tea Party. The media, and its rhetorical camp followers in the Leftyblogosphere Stupid Caucus, have been banging the “Teh Tea Partie is teh ignerent racisst” drum for close to four years now.
And in that time, the GOP overtook the Democrats in the number of elected minorities at the state level.
This is potentially good news, in the long term.
If the GOP deserves to keep it going.
Looking at Boehner’s performance this year, I’m seeing an obstacle or two.
It would be uncharitable to suggest, as some Democrats do, that the majority of Republicans are racist or sexist or xenophobic or big Ayn Rand readers. Most Republicans, I think, are none of the above. But for some reason the people who have spent the past few years lashing out against women, and Hispanics, and gays, and non-Christians, and poor people, all seem to come from the Republican party. That’s why the Republicans lost. It’s nice that some of them seem to get that, but it’s alarming that some don’t, and are even drawing the opposite conclusion.
I sorta doubt obsessive self-affirmation and self-diagnosis pair well.
But for some reason the people who have spent the past few years lashing out against women, and Hispanics, and gays, and non-Christians, and poor people, all seem to come from the Republican party.
What in the world are you talking about?
What party do the people who have been ‘lashing out’ against white males come from?
I’m ashamed to admit that the racist impression of the South does have some basis in fact.
Local newspapers here in South Carolina are sodden with the virulent racisim running rampant in the rump Democrat party here. I’ve read comments calling Senator Scott, who is a thouroughly decent and honorable man, everything from the old lefty standby “Uncle Tom”, to “House Nigger” by outraged Obama supporters.
To his credit, Senator Scott shrugs off the hatred and promises to stand by his values and to bring credit to the overwhelming majority of South Carolinians who support him and I add my own “God’s speed Tim” to the chorus.
Terry, demographics won the last election.
Emery, base turnout won the last election.
Republicans need to get ahead of demographics – and there’s a general knowledge in the party that that’s the case. It’s not something that happens overnight. But seeing that the GOP outnumbers the Dems among minority governors and state legislators, and among competent women in politics, is a good sign.
Emery wrote:
But for some reason the people who have spent the past few years lashing out against women, and Hispanics, and gays, and non-Christians, and poor people, all seem to come from the Republican party.
To which I responded:
“What in the world are you talking about?”
To which Emery responded:
Terry, demographics won the last election.
Which, of course, is not responsive. Who the heck was ‘lashing out against women, and Hispanics, and gays, and non-Christians, and poor people’?
I will also submit that the DemocRATs, who scream the loudest against voter ID with lies and obfuscation, perpetrated a fair amount of fraud. Case in point; here in our communist controlled state, there were over 550,000 same day voter registrations. There is no way in hell that there were that many new eligible voters in this state! Even if we combined new residents, offset with departures out of the state and people that became eligible to vote for the first time, there aren’t that many. Yet, our incompetent socialist George Soros puppet Secretary of State, along with the ministry of propaganda and supporting cast, claim that there is no voter fraud. Another case occurred in PA, where GOP poll watchers were barred from a polling place by DemocRATs until a judge ordered them to allow the GOP in. How many fraudulent votes were cast there before the court order? And, in NY, DemocRAT poll workers were telling voters, including the GOP candidate and her husband, that they had to vote straight DemocRAT. How many low information voters actually did that? Since angryclown, The corrupt Cuomo family and Michael Bllomberg are such a great indicators of the intelligence level of New Yorkers, we have to conclude that it may have been hundreds.
I guess I shouldn’t pick on Emery too much. The media has been pushing the ‘demographic’ message, w/o noting that it makes no sense when you look at the 2010 election.
Terry, don’t get upset with Emery. He doesn’t speak the standard American English that you learned in school years ago, he speaks Sensitive, which is a different dialect altogether. It’s a language invented by the DFL for two purposes: first, so they can easily identify outsiders who don’t know the secret code (people like you) who can then be excoriated with impunity; and second, because Orwell was right that language shapes thought which directs action. Sensitive and NewSpeak are very similar dialects.
In English, “lashing out” would mean taking violent action against another. I might “lash out” at a gay woman by punching her face, or by screaming about her sinful sex life at a New Year’s Eve party. In Sensitive, “lashing out” means failing to be as supportive as she wants me to be at that moment. I might “lash out” at a gay woman by failing to withdraw my application for a job she wanted, or by disagreeing with her blog or even by remaining noncommittal when she tells me how her lesbian lover cheated on her.
“Lashing out” in Sensitive is how SHE feels about it, there is no objective standard or definition. That’s the signal difference between English and Sensitive. There is no dictionary for Sensitive; can’t be, as the definition of actions change with the circumstances. It’s similar to a Black person calling another Black the N-word versus a White man doing it: the identical word is a term of endearment and also a hate crime, depending.
In Emery’s world, Republicans historically have “lashed out” at gays by failing to offer them special legal privileges. Democrats had to fight to include “sexual orientation” in the list of privileged persons and, of course, Democrats led the fight to defeat the Marriage Amendment that would have preserved the 5,000-year-old foundation of Western society now standing in the way of gay peoples’ self-esteem.
In Sensitive, Emery’s first analysis and second actually are consistent: Republicans “lash out” at gays, women and minorities by failing to give them the special privileges they want, and demographically there now are enough groups wanting special privileges to out-vote Republicans.
Here’s the frightening part: Emery isn’t alone. Politics is like total immersion language learning. The Republican Establishment hears Sensitive spoken so often, they’ve started to think that way. You hear Republican Establishment leaders talking like Democrats because that’s the language they both speak.
The cure is term limits and since no politician will voluntarily give up power, we must replace them with candidates who still understand American English: TEA Party candidates elected by turning out the base.
Emery,
What Terry said:
Which, of course, is not responsive. Who the heck was ‘lashing out against women, and Hispanics, and gays, and non-Christians, and poor people’?
That’s a Democrat chanting point.
But feel free to respond.
BTW, if “Demographics” won the last election, they missed the House of Representatives, most of the contested Governor races, and a majority of contested state legislative seats (outside Minnesota). I’d say “a base-turnout campaign promoting Obama’s cult of personality” won the election, but not as big as it did in 2008.
I am loathe to make guesses about why national elections went a particular way. But nevertheless . . .
You may remember that in 2004 Bush supposedly won because he got the votes of ‘values voters’, who then stayed home (I guess) in 2008, when the GOP ran two candidates with strong ‘values’ credentials.
I think the deciding factor in the 2012 presidential contest was the inability of the GOP to turn out the white working class vote. I suspect that the cause of this was the pro-business rather than pro-worker tenor of the national campaign. For example, there was no serious discussion of stagnant wages that affected the working class for a decade or more. This Andrew Klavan column sums up my feelings on the topic: http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/11/11/makers-and-takers-and-someone-we-forgot/
I am certainly willing to look at counter-arguments, but for the last decade, at least, I have considered the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to be a drag on the GOP.
That’s funny Nate, I’ve always considered myself a conservative with liberal social attitudes.
Did the GOP notice how Mr. Romney started his ascent in the polls while attempting to move to the center?
Older, whiter, less educated, more religious — that sounds like winning demographic profile for the future.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/todays-question/archive/2012/12/what-would-you-like-to-hear-from-the-nra.shtml#comments
But for some reason the people who have spent the past few years lashing out against women, and Hispanics, and gays, and non-Christians, and poor people, all seem to come from the Republican party.
Project much, emoryboard? There is a not a single racist, homophobic, xenophobic, chauvinistic demoncRAT? You, conservative? Pshaw!
Oh, and by the way, I did read Atlas Shrugged, and Fountainhead, and We the Living. BTW, you should read We the Living – very educational and instructional what happened in real life when your beloved commies took over. Or are you alergic to Ayn Rand?
Who knew the TEA party principles of small decentralized government, encouraging private sector economic growth, individual freedom & responsibility and low taxes were strictly for native born Caucasian humans with penises who are sexually oriented toward humans with vaginas who only have Christian belief systems and lots of money? Must be why it’s ok for Liberals to have no fear calling TEA party members like Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Allen West “minstrels” and “uncle toms” and “house n******”. Or why Liberals have not criticized a fellow Liberal Obama donor like Bill Maher for calling Governor Sarah Palin and Rep. Michelle Bachman “c****”. Or hurt Rep Nancy Pelosi from being re-elected Minority Leader when she said Jews who supported Mitt Romney were “exploited dupes”. Or led to criticism of the Huffington Post columnist who called Marco Rubio a “Mormon wetback”. Or called GW Bush’es campaign manager Ken Mehlman a “faggot” (Bill Maher, again).
I’d list more examples of Liberal racism, mysogyny, anti-Semitism, homophobia and xenophobia, but I’m busy lashing out.
Emory, you should consider moving South…the Democrats down here can always use another ignorant racist.
Swift: Emory cannot, by definition, be a racist because he told you he has liberal leanings. He’s been absolved.
Emory said:
“racist or sexist or xenophobic or big Ayn Rand readers”
So being a “big Ayn Rand reader” is similar somehow to being “racist or sexist or xenophobic”?
I have heard the “Ayn Rand was a sociopath, so all things she wrote are evil, and thus so are people who read them” lefty-bot chanting point expressed before, but never by a “conservative with liberal social attitudes”.
Turns out, it sounds just as stupid.
Here is what I love about Liberals… They can write a NYT Op-Ed calling South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s (a woman of Indian descent) appointment of Representative Tim Scott (an African American) to complete the term of Senator Jim DeMint (old, straight, white guy) “a token gesture”. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/opinion/the-puzzle-of-black-republicans.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
Yet when we look at where this Liberal works (U Penn poli-sci dept) we find that in fact his employer has decided it has the same diversity as the Republican party. It has it’s token hire…http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/i-would-never-be-so-insulting-as-to-accuse-the-u-penn-political-science-department-of-tokenism/
Now Emery, I’m not sure if this Liberal is a Conservative with Liberal social ‘attitudes’ like you (is that like a guy who does everything he can to avoid paying taxes while trying to lay as many women as he possibly can?) or just a straight up Liberal. But the fact that he can and will get over with this type of bigotry shows that Republicans will never win over people who think non-whites, women, gays and non-Christians should all “think” exactly the same.
Both parties pander to a rich elite by telling them exactly what they want to hear, which in each case is a fantasy. In the Democrat’s case they rely on the long-standing liberal fantasy that most Americans are illiterate rubes who don’t understand that voting for the Democrats is in their economic self-interest. In fact, many non-wealthy Americans really do vote on social rather than economic issues with their eyes wide open, don’t trust that the liberal elite can ‘manage’ the economy efficiently to deliver the promised handouts, and think handouts are morally wrong and economically ruinous anyway. They find the ideas and morality of the liberal elite deeply offensive, which is why they vote Republican.
Meanwhile the GOP are telling it’s base that everything they ever sort-of read by Rand and Hayek is true, that we’re already well down the Road to Serfdom, that half of America is addicted to welfare dependency, that everyone with money has it because they’re the smartest and most hard working Americans, and that America would be a far better place if only the government would let the elite keep all of their money and forced the little people to work hard and show a little gumption. In fact, most of those rich people inherited money, led privileged childhoods, had privileged educations, and those few that truly created something were blessed with as much luck as skill or effort. Most recipients of government handouts are sick, old, or have suffered grievous hardship, and most have and will work far harder than the rich people in the room.
The delusional fantasies of left-wing and right-wing wealthy elites are actually much closer to each other than they are to reality. They both assume that poor people are stupid and/or lazy and deeply in need of guidance and instruction from hard working, smart rich people. Their conception of the middle class, much less the poor, is a caricature formed in the vacuum created by their lack of contact with anyone outside of the elite. I guarantee you that the right-wing and left-wing elites understand and respect each other far better than they understand the plebeians whom each holds in such low regard. Why wouldn’t they? They went to school and live together.
Once again, Emery, you are reluctant to name names.
Who is the GOP elite? I’m certain you know just who you are talking about. Romney? Ryan? McCain? Palin?
What is an ‘elite’, anyhow. It’s more than just the possession of money or power, it is the will to use it. That is, an elite is someone who believes that they have authority over you, but that you have no authority over him or her. There is no country in the world that is not run by so-called ‘elites’. The question is, do these elites reflect the values of the people they govern, or do they seek to impose their own values on them?
Terry,
Had a Tea Party candidate been nominated as the GOP nominee. Would that have changed the outcome of the election in any meaningful way?
Mr. Berg says: I’d say “a base-turnout campaign promoting Obama’s cult of personality” won the election, but not as big as it did in 2008.
Not that I’m a big fan of the President but Obama joins FDR, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan as the only presidents of the past century to twice win more than 50 percent of the popular vote.
I would appear the facts say otherwise
Terry,
Had a Tea Party candidate been nominated as the GOP nominee. Would that have changed the outcome of the election in any meaningful way?
I don’t know. Do you know, Emery?
Isn’t it time for you to put up or shut up, Emery?
Who is this GOP elite? Who has been ‘lashing out against women, and Hispanics, and gays, and non-Christians, and poor people’?
I am beginning to believe you are just a gassy old wind bag, Emery.
Terry says:
“…gassy old windbag…”
It would appear that I have found my people Terry..
Hey Emery, tell Dog Gone we’re glad you found each other. 😉
I don’t make arguments I can’t backup, Emery. If I say the ideologues of the Democrat party are socialists, I will give chapter and verse.
I am not in your club.
This thread is probably played out so you may not see it, Emery, but I suggest there is no such thing as a Conservative who is a Social Liberal.
A woman wants an abortion. A Conservative says No, the state has the right to protect the unborn child. A Social Liberal says Yes, the woman’s right to privacy trumps the unborn child’s life.
The woman now wants her abortion paid for by taxpayers. A Conservative says Nobody buys my guns to subsidize my rights, I’m not paying for your abortion to subsidize yours. A Social Liberal says Yes, taxpayers must subsidize poor women killing their children, out of fairness.
In the end, a Social Liberal’s positions on every subject end up being indistinguishable from a plain old DFL Liberal.
The GOP adopted the Tea Party when they were down in 2009 and the Tea Party looked like a way to win. Now that the Tea Party looks like a way to lose, I don’t think they’ll be tolerated for long. Republicans are nothing if not ruthless.
It was a way to win, Emery. Who holds the House? Geez.
‘Ruthless?’ Ha! What do you think they’ll do? Have them killed?
And the strategy will be purity of message and candidate in 2014 and 2016?
As I posted earlier, did the GOP notice Mr. Romney started his ascent in the polls while attempting to move to the center?
And the strategy will be purity of message and candidate in 2014 and 2016?
I don’t know what ‘the message’ should be in 2014.
Since you have been consistently wrong about what you’ve written here, Emery, they might well ask you what to do, and then do the opposite.
Mahalo.
There was a poll just the other day that you probably saw. Something like half of all Republicans believe that the 2012 election was stolen for Obama by a group called ACORN, which went out of business several years ago. It doesn’t even exist. I mean, they just believe these conspiracy theories. And they circulate without barrier, because nobody will say anything to disagree with it. And if you hear the same propaganda over and over and over again, eventually you’re going to start to believe it.
“It’s Not A Lie If You Believe It”
George Costanza (Seinfeld)
Re: The so-called Fiscal Cliff (slope):
I’d go even further. I’d say let the fiscal cliff take effect permanently. Now everybody’s afraid to do that. They think the economy’s too fragile. But if you look at what the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. They say, ‘Yes, we’d lose some growth for about half a year. But the medium and long term growth would actually be higher, because it would actually do exactly what everybody says they want to do, which is cut a lot out of the long-term deficits’. And it would do so fairly by raising revenues a lot and cutting spending. What, how else are we going to cut the defense budget if we don’t allow the sequester to take effect? Both parties are pretty much into that. So I say let’s just let the whole thing happen. If I was a member of the Senate, I’d filibuster anything to get rid of it.
So yes, by all means do the opposite Terry….
Best to you and your family over the holidays.
Look at the methodology and the wording of the poll’s questions, Emery.
It’s crap.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1204.pdf
Seriously, look at the relevant question re: Acorn. That is an example of poor poll methodology. It would be the equivalent of asking people, in 2004, if they believed the Iraq war was legitimate or if it was fomented by Jews? No other answer allowed besides ‘no opinion’.