Cantor loses to Tea Party challenger in major upset

Cantor, the republican Senate minority leader, in a first ever case, lost in the primary in VA to an unknown and upstart Tea Party candidate. The NYT is flabbergasted. After all, they have been telling us that the Tea Party is dead, after all.

With just over $200,000, David Brat — a professor at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Va. — toppled Mr. Cantor, repeatedly criticizing him for being soft on immigration and contending that he supported what critics call amnesty for immigrants in the country illegally. The Associated Press declared Mr. Brat the winner.

Going into the elections, most Republicans had been watching for how broad Mr. Cantor’s victory would be, with almost no one predicting that he would lose.

Mr. Cantor’s defeat — the most unexpected of a congressional leader in recent memory — will reverberate in the capital and could have major implications for an immigration overhaul.

There is a lesson here for all politicians: Americans are not liking the current immigration strategy employed by either party. Amnesty for these law breaking border jumpers should be a no-go. We were already promised in the 80s it would not happen again, and here we are today with central American nations all happy that Obama’s administration has decided not to enforce immigration laws. It’s insane.

Cantor losing is about the greatest thing that could have happened right now. It will force the politicians in DC to abandon their strategy to reward criminals in order to buy potential future votes. And democrats should be even more weary about this. A large section of their voter base views these border jumpers as direct competition for their livelihood, and they will not just accept the new comers, despite what the elite hoi-polloi on the left tell them they should believe.

Good riddance, and lets make sure the amnesty plans are derailed.

  1. It will also, unfortunately, indefinitely delay any attempt at real immigration reform. So we can look forward to more difficulties for legal immigrants and more illegal immigrants who just say, “fuck it” and sneak in.

    Cantor’s hoist by his own petard on this one. That district was gerrymandered to be as conservative as possible.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  2. I’m not sure what to make of Brat, but I will never weep for an incumbent politician who is rousted out of office.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  3. http://davebratforcongress.com/issues/

    I don’t agree on the right to life views 100%, but overall seems like a good set of issues to me. Including his view on the intrusive NSA and crony capitalism, and immigration. Issues that are a growing and real issue for this country, and has a far more reaching impact than the designer and media hyped politics like gay marriage. Not that I don’t think gay people should marry, but it was a marketed issue, not an oh shit we have a problem issue.

    I’m happy to see this happen. As far as the gerrymandering, that was done in 2010 and Cantor was still given a chance in 2012, so maybe it’s not just that. Maybe people are starting to have enough and will continue to rotate people out until we can get a responsible and accountable government in charge.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  4. Yeah, S8, I’m willing to give him a chance. The Left Wing blogs are screaming that he’s a tea-party extremist but they say everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is a tea party extremist.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  5. Was he doing it because he likes Brat, or was he doing it to get Cantor out of the race similar to 08 when some Democrats were telling their people to get out and vote for McCain in the primaries?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. He was probably doing it to get back at Cantor for beating him in ’02. But also I think for the Democrats for McCain reason.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. CM just proved he doesn’t understand how American politics works – at all….

    More than happy for you to explain why that theory is wrong. Any 10 of you that down-voted my comment.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  8. The more I look at this, the more it looks like immigration was a side show. That’s what the Inside the Beltway media has locked onto it. But his speeches are mostly about corruption and crony capitalism, which Eric Cantor was hip-deep in. I think the press are — here’s a surprise — misreading the electorate.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  9. More than happy for you to explain why that theory is wrong. Any 10 of you that down-voted my comment.

    I was not one of those thumbs down voters but I think the GOP has to stand for something, right? By definition it is already to the right, pulling it more in that direction is not necessarily a bad thing if what it stands for makes sense. What little I know about this race, the winner appealed to the voters by providing positions that were more in line with theirs, and pointing out how Ryan’s positions were not.

    Sure, both party’s need moderates, the middle voters to win elections, but if the middle is where he stake your flag, you don’t really stand for anything anyway. Refining the arguments so that you can attract more moderates, that is the play, not watering down your principles.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  10. I think CM that would be more true if the Tea Party were an actual presidential option.

    It’s happening in the UK as UKIPs gains are actually hurting the Tories by splitting their base in two, whereas Labours base remains intact. The Tea Party voters are still going to vote for the Republican presidential candidate. It’s not a fight over voters, but a fight over policy.

    And in that you could lose moderates – but on the flip side you energise the base, and work the turnout.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Your theory is wrong because you seem to have no fucking clue as to how congress is voted in. its a TINY election, in a conservative district. How does that help the dems in any way you retarded fucking moron. Your the one that made the claim, back it up with facts not just “I SAY SO” I dont even think there was over 400 thousand votes cast

    Hot! Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

  12. By definition it is already to the right, pulling it more in that direction is not necessarily a bad thing if what it stands for makes sense.

    All depends whether it makes sense to the moderates. It goes without saying that it will inherently make sense to those already fairly far to the right. But surely it will enable the left to get the base aroused.

    Sure, both party’s need moderates, the middle voters to win elections

    I would say they are absolutely crucial.

    but if the middle is where he stake your flag, you don’t really stand for anything anyway.

    I strongly disagree with that. It means you don’t stand for an extreme position. That’s certainly standing for something. You can take a pragmatic view and make decisions based on things more important than ideology. But it doesn’t get people’s blood flowing, that’s true. People do love belonging to a tribe/gang/team.

    It’s happening in the UK as UKIPs gains are actually hurting the Tories by splitting their base in two, whereas Labours base remains intact. The Tea Party voters are still going to vote for the Republican presidential candidate. It’s not a fight over voters, but a fight over policy.

    You’re right, TP voters will still vote for the Republican candidate, so there is little change there. What it would do is transfer some potential Republican votes from moderates to the Democrats (or they just won’t vote) and it could ensure a higher turnout from Dem voters. It would be the same if the Dems were hijacked by the Socialists.

    …you retarded fucking moron. Your…

    You do this almost every time you post but it never gets old. Superb.

    Your the one that made the claim, back it up with facts not just “I SAY SO”

    It was very clearly a theory (“surely”), and was explained within the post itself. It was Seattle who said it was wrong, but failed to explain why. That’s all there up above. You can use your mouse to scroll up and check. Or get a parent to do it for you.

    LOL less than 70k votes. Yep thats gonna hep the dems. Retard

    Yes, except I wasn’t referring to this specific result in isolation (after all “The NYT is flabbergasted….. they have been telling us that the Tea Party is dead, after all”). I didn’t think that needed spelling out. But I’m always happy to hep.

    I love that it’s now up to 12 downvotes. Being that it as SUCH a vanilla bit of speculation. You do know that downvoting it doesn’t make it any less of a possibility right? Right? Are so many of you really that shit-scared (and cowards)? Funny.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  13. “Are so many of you really that shit-scared (and cowards)? Funny.”

    When people flush their shit down the toilet do you think they do it because they’re afraid of it? Maybe there’s just no use for it. Everyone here knows you’re a disingenuous prick to begin with and can’t even be honest with yourself let alone the rest of us with your consistent self labeling of how righteous and objective you are, when just about every post you write reveals otherwise.

    Did you even examine this guys views or just take Salon.com’s word and the knee-jerk left wing bias that teaparty candidate = extremist? That’s objective. Again, maybe you don’t see the bullshit in your writing but everyone else does. Of course it must be us and you’re the victim. :(

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  14. Interesting. Surely having a powerful Tea Party is ultimately great news for the Dems, as pulling the Republican Party to the right delivers considerably more votes to the Dems from moderates.

    Didn’t seem to work out that way during the 2010 midterms, did it? The Dems got “shellacked”, wasn’t that the term being used? One can argue that the problem with the Republican Party is that it’s too far to the left and needs to be pulled back to the right. The last two Presidential cycles would seem to indicate that running moderates is not a winning strategy.

    More than happy for you to explain why that theory is wrong.

    Done.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  15. And of course, this begs the question of how the Tea Party got so “powerful” in the first place. Perhaps connecting with the electorate at some level might have something to do with it?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  16. The last two Presidential cycles would seem to indicate that running moderates is not a winning strategy.

    Bingo.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  17. I actually spent a fair amount of time yesterday reading up on what the “Tea Party” really is versus what shit-for-brains Marxists like CM claim it is. Once you subtract the very few nutjobs that have attached themselves to it that the progtards like to point at, what you are left with is a vast, libertarian-minded group that is focused primarily on economics and a return to a rule of law under the framework laid out under the original intent of the constitution.

    No fucking wonder the neo-marxists hate it; their imperial presidency and decades of crony capitalism get shown the fucking door. Far better to just scream “racists” all the time and attempt to discredit the majority of the country that is getting ready to start kicking asses and taking names.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  18. CM, where you keep going off the rails (and Section 8 pinpointed part of it, believing the left wing propaganda about the TP and not doing your own critical thinking) is your refusal (or inability) to acknowledge that right wing principles are not extreme and do have great appeal to the center.

    Fighting amnesty (and until the border is secured, that’s all immigration reform really is)
    A fealty to the Constitution, which includes an understanding of the separation of powers
    A fealty to the rule of law (a legal system that is applied uniformly and without prejudice)
    A balanced budget (with an understanding that an ever growing national debt weakens us as a nation)
    A concerted effort to reduce the size and scope of government
    A preservation of the dignity of the individual (allowing him more of a say in how his child is to be educated, keeping governmental over reach out of his life, giving him more of of say in how he runs his life and allowing him to keep more of his hard earned money by lowering taxes)
    Preserving the basic principles of the free markets by eliminating crony capitalism and noxious governmental regulations, allowing the entrepreneurial spirit to flourish and not tax the shit out of it.

    You think these tenets extreme, I don’t, and I think they would have massive appeal to any clear thinking person.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  19. You think these tenets extreme, I don’t, and I think they would have massive appeal to any clear thinking person.

    Precisely why they don’t appeal to progressives like CM.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  20. Every Congressional election is different. This was about a lot of things (some mentioned above). One more potential factor: Cantor apparently spends a lot of time outside his district-fund raising in California doesn’t produce great optics back home.

    One other point: people who wet their pants about money in politics should be a wee bit less sure of themselves. Cantor spent something like 40 times as much as Brat. To hear the campaign finance advocates rantings, this simply couldn’t happen because big money buys elections.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  21. CM, where you keep going off the rails (and Section 8 pinpointed part of it, believing the left wing propaganda about the TP and not doing your own critical thinking) is your refusal (or inability) to acknowledge that right wing principles are not extreme and do have great appeal to the center.

    Fighting amnesty (and until the border is secured, that’s all immigration reform really is)
    A fealty to the Constitution, which includes an understanding of the separation of powers
    A fealty to the rule of law (a legal system that is applied uniformly and without prejudice)
    A balanced budget (with an understanding that an ever growing national debt weakens us as a nation)
    A concerted effort to reduce the size and scope of government
    A preservation of the dignity of the individual (allowing him more of a say in how his child is to be educated, keeping governmental over reach out of his life, giving him more of of say in how he runs his life and allowing him to keep more of his hard earned money by lowering taxes)
    Preserving the basic principles of the free markets by eliminating crony capitalism and noxious governmental regulations, allowing the entrepreneurial spirit to flourish and not tax the shit out of it.

    You think these tenets extreme, I don’t, and I think they would have massive appeal to any clear thinking person.

    If I were a chick and you were a dude, I’d totally have your babies.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  22. One other point: people who wet their pants about money in politics should be a wee bit less sure of themselves. Cantor spent something like 40 times as much as Brat. To hear the campaign finance advocates rantings, this simply couldn’t happen because big money buys elections.

    Agreed. An entrenched incumbent politician outspend his challenger and still lost. Proves the system works. Then again, I have never believed that the people that claim to have a big beef with “all that money in politics” really had anything but a beef with “republican money in politics”. That’s why those campaign finance laws read like Greeks writing quantum physics formulae in Mandarin Chinese: the need to leave loopholes for leftist entities like unions and the other progtard interests to pour their big bucks into the fray.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  23. If I were a chick and you were a dude, I’d totally have your babies.

    I’m not big on commitment, how about if we just do some heavy petting and call it a day?

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  24. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  25. “I certainly didn’t expect everyone to go bat-shit crazy over something so mild.”

    Sooo… people giving you thumbs down = bat shit crazy? You did ask for an explanation and you got explanations from people, but you’re the victim. Always. Woe is me. woe (:

    woe

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  26. Certainly they tapped into something and connected with a particular segment of the electorate, but I’m not sure it’s a very diverse segment.

    You think that because your a racist and biased CM.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  27. Sooo… people giving you thumbs down = bat shit crazy? You did ask for an explanation and you got explanations from people, but you’re the victim. Always. Woe is me. woe (:

    Having such an innocuous comment disliked so much that its hidden from view is certainly a little bit crazy, yeah.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  28. Could be, but IMO the moderates didn’t fail to vote Republican in sufficient numbers because the Party was too far to the left – their failed to capture sufficient numbers of women and non-whites. Are women or non-whites going to be more likely to vote Republican if they head further right? Not sure they will be.

    That depends on what “head further right” is perceived to mean. If it’s perceived to mean “extreme, bigoted, hateful” like the MSM narratives dictate, then you are right, moderates will not vote Republican. But if conservatives can get their message out through the MSM misinformation fog, there is absolutely no reason to believe moderates, women, non-whites wouldn’t vote Republican in sufficient numbers. The message should be about empowering individuals, regardless of race or gender.

    Republican candidates need to get the “government isn’t the solution to our problem, government is the problem” message out effectively. They can do what Reagan did, ask the question, “Are you personally better off now than you were prior to my predecessor’s Administration?”

    Obama’s approval ratings are roughly on par with Bush’s — clearly many would answer the above question in the negative.

    One can easily argue that one reason the GOP is fairing poorly is because it is perceived to be the same as the Democrat party. It is not an alternative to the Dems, just more of the same big government, crony capitalism corruption, only with an “R” after the name instead of a “D”. I remember reading some Libertarian literature many years ago, which said that there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. It seems that being more like the Dems isn’t helping the GOP very much.

    Another angle to consider is this: If you intend to “get the woman/non-white vote” by pandering, you end up compromising your principles, which again can be seen as a form of corruption. If your goal is merely to get power, then why bother? If, on the other hand, you articulate your principles and stand by them, explaining how those principles empower the voters, you might have a chance at succeeding. If not, then perhaps the country is simply done for.

    Certainly they tapped into something and connected with a particular segment of the electorate, but I’m not sure it’s a very diverse segment.

    Then explain how an entity becomes “powerful” by tapping in to a non-diverse segment of the electorate. If the Tea Party is “powerful” and the segment they tapped into is not “diverse”, then perhaps it simply doesn’t need to be, and your argument about the woman/non-white vote is moot.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  29. If it’s perceived to mean “extreme, bigoted, hateful” like the MSM narratives dictate, then you are right, moderates will not vote Republican. But if conservatives can get their message out through the MSM misinformation fog, there is absolutely no reason to believe moderates, women, non-whites wouldn’t vote Republican in sufficient numbers.

    What do you think CM is doing here Iconoclast? To me it looks like he is heavily engaged in the first thing you mention, because like most on the left, he is scared about the second part of your point. There is a reason that the left immediately associates conservatism with misogyny, homophobia, racism, and any and all other negative things, and it isn’t because that’s what it is about. Going negative like this has managed to keep a huge swat of the low information voters misinformed about what the real purpose and design of organizations like the Tea Party are about. Those things Rich mentioned are the bane of the progressive nanny state, and they know that if they can’t scare people away from organizations like the Tea Party, they are going to end up losing.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  30. If it’s perceived to mean “extreme, bigoted, hateful” like the MSM narratives dictate, then you are right, moderates will not vote Republican.

    I mean policies that entrench power with the already-powerful. Policies that actually likely to make life tougher for women and non-whites. The right doesn’t seem to be able to articulate how their policies will be better for these people. They have the high level theory and the laudable goal of “empowering individuals, regardless of race or gender” but when this gets translated into policy I think many people (including moderates) can guess what it would actually mean in practice.
    The “extreme, bigoted, hateful” stuff comes from some particular individuals, and the right sure doesn’t have a monopoly on those individuals. But the Republicans can certainly do a lot better with quality control when it comes to selecting candidates (e.g. Akin, Angle).

    One can easily argue that one reason the GOP is fairing poorly is because it is perceived to be the same as the Democrat party. It is not an alternative to the Dems, just more of the same big government, crony capitalism corruption, only with an “R” after the name instead of a “D”. I remember reading some Libertarian literature many years ago, which said that there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. It seems that being more like the Dems isn’t helping the GOP very much.

    Yes that’s certainly a reasonable argument. I think it’s a matter of differentiating without alienating sufficient moderates.

    Another angle to consider is this: If you intend to “get the woman/non-white vote” by pandering, you end up compromising your principles, which again can be seen as a form of corruption. If your goal is merely to get power, then why bother? If, on the other hand, you articulate your principles and stand by them, explaining how those principles empower the voters, you might have a chance at succeeding. If not, then perhaps the country is simply done for.

    I think this is the central problem for the right (as opposed to the centre-right). How do they retain their principles but without appearing to be advocating for policies which will entrench and increase existing concentrations of power (for wealthy older white people)? I certainly don’t know the solution. But wealthy white people make up a decreasing proportion of the population.
    What does the Republican Party stand for that differentiates it from the Tea Party? How would they sell their brand to try and get people to vote Republican and not Tea Party, out of principle (not because people simply don’t want the Republicans to lose to the Democrats).

    Then explain how an entity becomes “powerful” by tapping in to a non-diverse segment of the electorate.

    By appealing universally. The Tea Party isn’t likely to extend their reach because they don’t advocate policies which resonate with the majority of people. Perhaps not appealing more universally is a sign that they’re advocating policies that are, in reality, only going to benefit a small segment of society. Or, yeah, perhaps they’re not selling it properly (but then I wouldn’t know how to sell what they’re got to people who would just laugh).

    If the Tea Party is “powerful” and the segment they tapped into is not “diverse”, then perhaps it simply doesn’t need to be, and your argument about the woman/non-white vote is moot.

    Unless their power manifests itself by splitting the Republican Party, or at least their vote, or pulling the Republican Party away from the moderate voters. That’s not going to be positive for the right.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  31. I mean policies that entrench power with the already-powerful. Policies that actually likely to make life tougher for women and non-whites. The right doesn’t seem to be able to articulate how their policies will be better for these people. They have the high level theory and the laudable goal of “empowering individuals, regardless of race or gender” but when this gets translated into policy I think many people (including moderates) can guess what it would actually mean in practice.

    Well, again, those “guesses” are prompted by the highly biased MSM. General “spending cuts” are translated into “taking away your grandma’s Social Security checks” or “taking away your mom’s Medicare” or what have you. Or even better, they’re translated into “reduced firefighting and police forces”. If you point to how money earmarked for education is wasted, the MSM reply is “Republicans obviously hate kids”. And so forth.

    This is what I was referring to when I said the GOP has to articulate its message through the MSM misinformation fog.

    The “extreme, bigoted, hateful” stuff comes from some particular individuals, and the right sure doesn’t have a monopoly on those individuals. But the Republicans can certainly do a lot better with quality control when it comes to selecting candidates (e.g. Akin, Angle).

    Agreed. It does the GOP no good if they give ammo to the MSM.

    Then explain how an entity becomes “powerful” by tapping in to a non-diverse segment of the electorate.

    By appealing universally. The Tea Party isn’t likely to extend their reach because they don’t advocate policies which resonate with the majority of people. Perhaps not appealing more universally is a sign that they’re advocating policies that are, in reality, only going to benefit a small segment of society. Or, yeah, perhaps they’re not selling it properly (but then I wouldn’t know how to sell what they’re got to people who would just laugh).

    But you are the one calling the Tea Party “powerful”, and then you proceed to contradict yourself. You say that entities become “powerful” by “appealing universally”, but then say that the “powerful” Tea Party is “not appealing more universally”. Now, while the movement may have been hijacked, it started as a grass-roots movement to reduce taxes, presumably for everyone who actually pays taxes, and reduce government spending. Now sure, those on the left can argue that the latter could “hurt” certain voters (those who currently receive entitlements), so those advocating spending reductions would need to articulate how that would be a net benefit, that more would benefit than would be “hurt”, or how certain entitlements would not be impacted in the first place. Again, it boils down to whether the majority of the electorate prefers independence or the government dole.

    But again, the main problem is the MSM’s filtering of information through its collective left-wing bias. That’s the main problem those in either the Tea Party or the GOP have to overcome.

    Unless their power manifests itself by splitting the Republican Party, or at least their vote, or pulling the Republican Party away from the moderate voters. That’s not going to be positive for the right.

    Perhaps, but then perhaps the Tea Party can be seen as a real alternative to both corrupt mainstream parties. Or perhaps the Tea Party can “infect” the GOP with those principles that the GOP used to stand for in the first place. If the Tea Party could resuscitate the GOP, that would obviously be good for the GOP.

    Again, the current example illustrates a GOP politician, out of touch with his constituency, being replaced by someone who does resonate with the electorate. And this type of thing is what led to the 2010 shellacking. Yet you insist that it’s a bad thing for the GOP to be rid of dead wood and have it replaced with people who do indeed resonate.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  32. Well, again, those “guesses” are prompted by the highly biased MSM. General “spending cuts” are translated into “taking away your grandma’s Social Security checks” or “taking away your mom’s Medicare” or what have you. Or even better, they’re translated into “reduced firefighting and police forces”. If you point to how money earmarked for education is wasted, the MSM reply is “Republicans obviously hate kids”. And so forth.

    This is what I was referring to when I said the GOP has to articulate its message through the MSM misinformation fog.

    Not entirely – at the last election there were things like Romney’s 47% comments. They weren’t invented by the media. There always seems to be something to support the “misinformation fog”. Enough to give sufficient people enough of an idea of what might happen (i.e. what that wording actually means in practice). IMO sufficient people simply don’t believe that reducing regulations won’t simply lead to even higher concentrations of power, and those benefiting the most from how society is structured would benefit even more (at the expense of others). It seems they’re even prepared to put up with a certain level of crony capitalism instead – although it’s more likely a lack of choice.

    But you are the one calling the Tea Party “powerful”, and then you proceed to contradict yourself.

    What I mean is that they clearly have a lot of power when it comes to the Republican Party. And ultimately a lot of power over the Republican Party translates into a certain degree of power generally. But I’m not sure how they ever get beyond a certain level, given that they inherently only appeal to a narrow spectrum (as reflected by most of them being older wealthy white people).
    I have a certain amount of power in my household but very little in my street and close to none in my suburb.

    Again, it boils down to whether the majority of the electorate prefers independence or the government dole.

    I don’t think this is correct. For one it’s not a matter of one or the other. Also, I think they are told “independence” but what they fear is being worse off because the powerful will simply become powerful, and increasingly their choices actually shrink as a result. That is what the right has to somehow deal with. How do they explain and show how that won’t happen? If they could, the Dems would be in some serious trouble.

    Perhaps, but then perhaps the Tea Party can be seen as a real alternative to both corrupt mainstream parties. Or perhaps the Tea Party can “infect” the GOP with those principles that the GOP used to stand for in the first place. If the Tea Party could resuscitate the GOP, that would obviously be good for the GOP.

    Certainly reducing the corrupt aspect has got to be a positive, especially if it means the Dems also have to lift their game in the same respect. But I’m not sure that it makes any difference in terms of power concentrations, and the fear of them.

    Again, the current example illustrates a GOP politician, out of touch with his constituency, being replaced by someone who does resonate with the electorate.

    Always a positive. I think there should be a time limit for all politicians, too much dead wood is re-elected. Same problem everywhere.

    Yet you insist that it’s a bad thing for the GOP to be rid of dead wood and have it replaced with people who do indeed resonate.

    Where did I insist that the removal of dead wood is a bad thing? My comment was about the effects of the Tea Party on the Republican Party.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  33. Not entirely – at the last election there were things like Romney’s 47% comments.

    But that proves my point! Those comments were not intended for the media; they were candid comments made in private by a GOP candidate to his staff. They just happened to be leaked to the MSM, which was all too happy to run with them in order to undermine Romney’s campaign.

    When a GOP candidate cannot even have a candid private dialog with his staff without his comments being splattered all over the MSM, it perfectly illustrates how hopelessly biased against conservatism the MSM is. And Romney’s comments weren’t even all that controversial. He was simply explaining to his staff why 47% of the electorate isn’t even worth pursuing.

    They weren’t invented by the media.

    And they weren’t intended for the media, either.

    IMO sufficient people simply don’t believe that reducing regulations won’t simply lead to even higher concentrations of power, and those benefiting the most from how society is structured would benefit even more (at the expense of others).

    And why do they believe that? That is the question, and again, it goes back to the MSM misinformation campaign. It again goes back to “cut government spending == take away your grandma’s social security checks” and so forth. Not that any of it is actually true, it’s just what the low-information voter believes, thanks to the MSM misinformation fog.

    Exactly how/why would reduced regulations harm a given voter? Reduced regulations translates into reduced government, and it translates into reduced government influence in a given person’s daily life. Why would someone “fear” that, unless programmed to do so by a misinforming media?

    It should be obvious how increased regulations translate into increased government power; how do reduced regulations lead to the same thing?

    I think they are told “independence” but what they fear is being worse off because the powerful will simply become powerful, and increasingly their choices actually shrink as a result.

    But that just doesn’t make any sense; “independence” means less government intrusion. How exactly does that make the powerful “more powerful”?

    That is what the right has to somehow deal with. How do they explain and show how that won’t happen?

    Well, they can simply point to what the left has been doing these past few years, and then ask, “are you better off now?” They can point to Obamacare, and how Obama has been rewriting the law single-handedly, in direct violation of the Constitution. They can point to the whole “Taliban Five” trade, which was also done illegally. They can simply explain how it’s already happening, and how they intend to stop it by simply going back to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, which Obama has been flagrantly violating.

    If the electorate cannot be made to understand that, then again, the US of A is simply and utterly doomed, end of story.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  34. And Romney’s comments weren’t even all that controversial. He was simply explaining to his staff why 47% of the electorate isn’t even worth pursuing.

    It indicated to the ’47%’ that despite all the rhetoric, the reality is likely to be quite different.

    And they weren’t intended for the media, either.

    Right, so there was no PR spin for a change, no dressing it up so as to not offend.

    And why do they believe that?

    Probably because of comments like the ’47%’, as well as many experiencing the powerful always taking every opportunity to increase and entrench that power. To them: less government = more corporate control. No different to any other western country.

    It again goes back to “cut government spending == take away your grandma’s social security checks” and so forth. Not that any of it is actually true, it’s just what the low-information voter believes, thanks to the MSM misinformation fog.

    The details of the Romney-Ryan tax plan would be revealed after the election – was that just fog from the media? IMO it’s a cop-out to only blame the media all the time, even if sometimes it may have some validity.

    Exactly how/why would reduced regulations harm a given voter? Reduced regulations translates into reduced government, and it translates into reduced government influence in a given person’s daily life. Why would someone “fear” that, unless programmed to do so by a misinforming media?

    Because many fear that the government control would just be replaced by corporate control. The fear is that there won’t actually be greater choice or more opportunities. The right need to somehow explain how that is misplaced. Do ‘barriers to entry’ get higher or lower? The theory is that they get lower, but we all know that companies do all they can to become monopolies.

    Well, they can simply point to what the left has been doing these past few years, and then ask, “are you better off now?

    That’s a false choice though. Being better or worse off now doesn’t necessarily indicate whether they would be worse or better off if an alternative system was put in place. Some wave this away as simply ‘people wanting free stuff’ but I don’t believe ( I mean sure, there is a certain segment that wants free stuff and votes accordingly, but I think they’re vastly outnumbered by people who don’t think like that).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  35. It indicated to the ’47%’ that despite all the rhetoric, the reality is likely to be quite different.

    Well, assuming they really exist(ed), the 47% weren’t going to vote for Romney anyway, and it turns out that they didn’t.

    Right, so there was no PR spin for a change, no dressing it up so as to not offend.

    Which suited the MSM just fine, I’m sure.

    And why do they believe that?

    Probably because of comments like the ’47%’, as well as many experiencing the powerful always taking every opportunity to increase and entrench that power. To them: less government = more corporate control. No different to any other western country.

    “Experiencing”? What does that mean, exactly? How are they not experiencing those in government “always taking every opportunity to increase and entrench” their power? No, again, I believe that what they are “experiencing” is MSM manipulation. Few directly “experienced” the fallout from Enron, for example, but the MSM kept that story front-and-center for weeks. Meanwhile, stories like the IRS scandal and subsequent cover up are quietly buried.

    The details of the Romney-Ryan tax plan would be revealed after the election – was that just fog from the media?

    Yes. Demands for details of liberal tax plans (or anything else) are rarely, if ever, demanded from the media. At least Romney and Ryan had a plan, but that wasn’t good enough. The MSM demanded “details”, which they typically don’t demand from liberal Democrats. Just how many “details” did the MSM demand from Obama regarding “Hope and Change”?

    No, this whole “details” thing was just a ruse, a way to make the GOP candidates look bad. Which goes back to my point.

    IMO it’s a cop-out to only blame the media all the time, even if sometimes it may have some validity.

    Doesn’t matter if you think it’s a “cop out” if it’s the truth. So far, instead of refuting the point, you’ve been (inadvertently?) supporting it.

    Because many fear that the government control would just be replaced by corporate control. The fear is that there won’t actually be greater choice or more opportunities.

    And again, why do they have that fear? It isn’t because of direct “experience” so much as “education” by the MSM, which tells them to fear “big business” while trusting government as long as Democrats are in charge. If Republicans are in charge, then government should also be feared. That is the overarching message, that you should vote Democrat to get a “trustworthy” government, because Republicans are in bed with “big business”.

    The right need to somehow explain how that is misplaced.

    Exactly. Like I said early on, they need to get the “government isn’t the solution to our problem, government is the problem” message out more effectively.

    Well, they can simply point to what the left has been doing these past few years, and then ask, “are you better off now?”

    That’s a false choice though. Being better or worse off now doesn’t necessarily indicate whether they would be worse or better off if an alternative system was put in place.

    It seemed to work for Ronald Reagan. There is no reason it couldn’t work now, epecially if we use something like Obamacare as the example. Many people consider themselvefs much worse off because of Obamacarte, and Republicans can leverage that by explaining how they were always opposed, how it passed without a single Republican vote, how the Democrats own it, how the Republicans from day one were predicting all the dire things that are actually happening today, and so forth. If nothing else, it could bolster their credibility with the electorate.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  36. Correction: while it’s true UKIP in the UK have split the Conservative vote (I voted UKIP for European Elections) – UKIP are also gaining Labour votes, and even picked up a council seat, I believe, in Scotland, home of that strange combination of blood-and-soil liberal parasites where no one of the Right can get a look in… usually.

    Note the same deceptions and smear tactics used against the Tea Party were used against UKIP – to the point that anti-UKIP vermin actually burst into a UKIP convention shouting “UKIP are Raccccists” at a bunch of black and asian UKIP candidates/councilmen….

    That’s double-think btw.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0