When the Republican Party sold out the Tea Party, it sold out its soul…

by sheikyermami on November 7, 2012

More reactions to Obama’s reelection:

This Race Is Far From Decided’: Allen West Wants a Recount

“Will pursue all legal means necessary.”-  Comments »

‘This Race Is Far From Decided’: Allen West Wants a Recount

Hannity Warns Americans Who Voted for Obama

Hannity Warns Americans Who Voted for Obama: ‘You Get the Government You Deserve… Good Luck With That’

‘You Get the Government You Deserve… Good Luck With That’

“It pains me to say this, but America now deserves Barack Obama.”–Read More »

Glenn Beck: ‘Freedom Is at Stake, and Freedom Lost Last Night’

“Half of our country, our neighbors, are completely lost in darkness.”–Read More »

The Tea Party Got It Right, Mitt Got It Wrong

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On November 7,  In Daily Mailer,FrontPage 

In this election the Republican Party ran two wholly inoffensive blue state Republicans on a platform of jobs at a time when the economy was everyone’s chief concern and the incumbent had absolutely failed to fix the economy. And they lost.

The Monday — or Wednesday — morning quarterbacks will have a fine time debating what Mitt Romney should have done differently. The red Republicans will say that he should have been more aggressive and should have hit Obama on Benghazi. The blue Republicans will blame a lack of outreach to Latinos. Some will blame Sandy, others will blame Christie and many will point to voter fraud. And they will all have a point, but the makings of this defeat did not happen in the last two weeks; they happened in the last two years.

Mark Steyn:

Live Free . . . Or Die

If this is the way America wants to go off the cliff, so be it. But I wish we’d at least had a Big Picture election. The motto of the British SAS is “Who dares wins.” The Republicans chose a different path. A play-it-safe don’t-frighten-the-horses strategy may have had a certain logic, but it’s unworthy of the times.

Mitt Romney won the primaries because he was electable. But, as it turned out, he really wasn’t electable after all. Not when the chief criteria of electability is having no opinion, no point of view and no reason to run for office except to win. Not when the chief criteria of being a Republican presidential nominee is being able to convince people that you’re hardly a Republican at all.

Romney was a star political athlete who had an excellent training regimen and coaching staff. But to win elections, you have to change people’s minds. It’s not enough to try hard or to fight hard; you have to fight for something besides the chance to round the bases. You have to wake people up to a cause.

The Republican comeback did not begin with innocuous candidates; it began with angry protesters in costumes and Gadsden flags marching outside ObamaCare town halls. The 2010 midterm election triumphs were not the work of a timorous establishment, but of a vigorous grassroots opposition. And once the Tea Party movement started the fire, the Republican establishment acted like the Tea Party had sabotaged their comeback and cut the ties with their own grassroots movement. Separated, the Republican grassroots and the Republican Party both withered on the vine.

The stunning 2010 midterm election victories happened because a conservative opposition loudly and vociferously convinced a majority of Americans that ObamaCare would be harmful to them. And then that fantastic engine of change was packed away and replaced with political consultants who were all focused on seizing the center and offending as few people as possible. But you don’t win political battles by being inoffensive. And you don’t win elections by avoiding conflict.

Is it any wonder that the 2012 election played out the way it did?

The Democrats in the Bush years were about as unlikable a party as could ever be conceived of. They were hostile, hateful and obstructionist. They spewed conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat and behaved in a way that would have convinced any reasonable person not to entrust them with a lawnmower, let alone political power. And not only were they rewarded for that by winning Congress, but they also went on to win the White House.

Why? Because dissatisfied people gravitate to an opposition. They don’t gravitate to a loyal opposition. They aren’t inspired by mild-mannered rhetoric, but by those who appear to channel their anger.

When the Republican Party sold out the Tea Party, it sold out its soul, and the only driving energy that it had. And there was nothing to replace it with. The Republican Party stopped being the opposition and became a position that it was willing to reposition to get closer to the center. Mitt Romney embodied that willingness to say anything to win and it is exactly that willingness to say anything to win that the public distrusts.

The elevation of Mitt Romney was the triumph of inoffensiveness. Romney ran an aggressive campaign, but it was a mechanical exercise, a smooth assault by trained professionals paid to spin talking points in dangerous directions. But, what if the voters really wanted a certain amount of offensiveness?

What if they wanted someone who mirrored their anger at being out of work, at having to look at stacks of unpaid bills and at not knowing where their next paycheck was coming from? What if they wanted someone whose anger and distrust of the government echoed their own?

Romney very successfully made the case that he would be a more credible steward of the economy. It was enough to turn out a sizable portion of the electorate, but not enough of it. He tried to be Reagan confronting Carter, but what was remarkable about Reagan, is that he had moments of anger and passion; electric flashes of feeling that stirred his audience and made them believe that he understood their frustrations. That was the source of Reagan’s moral authority and it was entirely lacking in Romney. And without that anger, there is no compelling reason to vote for an opposition party.

The establishment had its chance with Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor was everything that they could possibly want. Moderate, bipartisan and fairly liberal. With his business background, he could make a perfect case for being able to turn the economy around. They had their perfect candidate and their perfect storm and they blew it.

The Republican Party is not going to win elections by being inoffensive. It is not going to win elections by going so far to the center that it no longer stands for anything. It is not going to win elections by throwing away all the reasons that people might have to vote for it. It is not going to win elections by constantly trying to accommodate what it thinks independent voters want, instead of cultivating and growing its base, and using them as the nucleus for an opposition that will change the minds of those independent voters.

The Republican Party has tried playing Mr. Nice Guy. It may be time to get back to being an opposition movement. And the way to do that is by relearning the lessons of the Tea Party movement. The Democratic Party began winning when it embraced the left, instead of running away from it. If the Republican Party wants to win, then it has to embrace the right and learn to get angry again. (Comments)

Join the discussion...

Too small? Click here This is a satirical website. None of what you read here has anything to do with Islam, because Islam is a Religion of Peace. Everybody knows that good Muslims never do the things they do, (because Allah does it for them, Quran 8:12) and we know that only our misperceptions, ignorance and stereotyping of Islam makes Muslims chop off heads, kill and rape women and children, bomb subways, buses, nightclubs and fly jets into buildings. If it wasn't for the media and da Jooozzz, we wouldn't even know its happening. We welcome open, honest, thoughtful, and vigorous discussion in the comments threads, so do yourself a favour and don't accuse us of being 'haters' because we are loving, tolerant people. Don't curse us, don't threaten us with death or hellfire, and don't accuse us of being "just like the terrorists" because we don't do to Muslims what they do to us or to themselves. Yes, we know that only idiots oppose Islam and sensible people submit, but  you should know that we are ignorant bigots, hypocrites and Islamophobes, and we prefer to remain that way... But since you are forcing yourselves (and your abhorrent belief-system on us) we will defend ourselves, because we must. Avoid tu quoque and ad hominem attacks. Don't bother with circular reasoning either, we been there, done it.  If you annoy us, you will be banned and your posts summarily deleted. Try to add to the discussion, don't try to sell snake oil, don't try to cover us with Islamic shrouds of kitman and taqiyya, don't bother with da'awa, (we've heard it before) don't spam us with long pieces of cut & paste, write in English, try to tell the truth, (we know that's hard for you because you are all pathological liars) but the truth will set you free, try it! One more thing: don't think you can post here under multiple monikers. You will quickly be disappeared! The same goes for trufers and conspiracy kooks: you get one chance, one time. Blow it out of your ass if you must; put your stupidity on display. But you won't be back, trust me on that. Take a deep breath before you post, try to make some sense, do not just vent, do not make a fool of yourself and if you prove us wrong you can earn 10 Islamic dollars for your piggy bank. Deal?

{ 2 comments }

Rick November 7, 2012 at 11:49 pm

Ron Paul, nuff said.

Ron would have taken all the republican voters, all the independents and enough disaffected Democrats to win the election.

Romney was a false bill of goods just like George W. Bush. America wasn’t going to make that mistake again.

James Boom November 8, 2012 at 3:16 am

http://departmentoffreespeech.net/wordpress/

Planet of the apes – so many idiots.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: