(Vanity) A Closer Look at the Tea Party Losses
Thanks again, grey_whiskers.
Posted on 11/03/2010 3:27:13 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
In a piece earlier this morning An Insomniac's Recap of the Elections, I wrote a brief analysis of the Nov. 2010 elections. During the ensuing discussion, freeper LS came up with a *very* important point which has been lost in the Palin-Rove pissing match by proxy.
The relevant quote is:
Some good points. I think in DE, CA, AK, and possibly CA, the races were NOT sufficiently nationalized. The feeling was to take it local, so O'Donnell kept talking about DE. Well, the House races for the most part were nationalized. And it showed.
So the first rule of successful waves is, capture the mood of the electorate and apply it to your race. If (as this time) the electorate is in a "throw all the bums out" mood, nationalize your race. If things are going well, play defense with your incumbents, and bask in the reflected glory of things going well; if you are challenging, pull a JFK and say "I think we can do even better."
One of the main differences between the fortunes of the conservatives / Establishment types and their fortunes has to do, not just with "did Rove stab us in the back" (though he did) or "did an unpolished candidate make it to the national stage" (which they did).
The question is, to what extent was the race nationalized, and to what extent was the race made to be about the individual?
Look at the most contentious races: Delaware, Alaska, Colorado, Arizona.
In all of these Senate races, the Establishment did not solidly back the Tea Party. But more importantly, the Establishment did NOT just sit back and let the candidate "wither on the vine" (to borrow an old phrase which got Newt Gingrich in trouble when it was misquoted).
Instead, the Establishment started problems by badmouthing the candidate -- thereby shouting out to the Democrats "OPEN SEASON!"
And the vultures and character assassins stooped to the kill.
Recall the infamous Rule #13 from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
By attacking the Tea Party candidate, the Establishment gave the go-ahead for the Dems to make each of these races about the individual rather than about Obama -- allowing the Dems to "freeze, personalize, and polarize" *our* candidates instead of Obama.
By contrast, look at two races which are not so contentious -- Marco Rubio in FL and Meg Whitman in CA.
Marco Rubio was helped greatly by the exposure of Crist as a DEM, and the infighting which (for once, in this election) was among the other party. He was, because of this, able to get his message out. Meg Whitman, the safe, establishment candidate for governor, met her doom when the Gloria Allred (what a fitting name!) / housekeeper scandal broke. Even though Meg followed the law, and the housekeeper was apparently the one using falsified documents, it took the wind out of Meg's sails. And the election became about her, establishment (and hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-in-her-warchest) candidate that she was.
Lesson learned here: Reagan's 11th commandment, don't speak evil of another Republican.
But in order to do that, we need to make sure those who wear the label of Republican, are not RINOs.
Otherwise, they will break Reagan's 11th commandment, and allow the Alinskyites their opening: and then *dare* us to do it back (showing that we are not "true to principle" either, thereby 'justifying' their RINO stances on other issues with a tu quoque).(*)
In summary, let Jimmy Buffet's TeaPartyville serve as fitting bumper music:
Wastin' away again in TeaPartyville
Searching for my lost GOP voters
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame (b*tch wh*re c*nt "nuts and sluts")
But I know it's not all their fault
(*) The meme following McCain's 2008 debacle against Teh One was that the extremist Sarah Palin drove off the middle, and the prissy purists failed to support McCain.
But this election, when in at least two cases a prissy candidate OVERRODE the clear choice of the primaries, and either trashed the duly chosen candidate, or put themsleves forward as a write-in, or stayed on the ticket...somehow, it's still supposed to be the conservative candidate's fault.
NOT.
Cheers!
BULLSEYE
Thanks grey_whiskers!
How do you feel about McCain and did you ever support him?
Or is it different and ok for the GOP to support the man who undermined the Republican POTUS while there was a Republican majority in both houses?
GOP didn’t have a problem twisting arms to vote for that guy, but someone the people actually chose isn’t good enough.
Which is EXACTLY what I said.
But if your own side is trashing you the very night you win an upset, what message does that send to the undecideds, who might not even have heard of you until that moment?
And on FOX News of all places?
Cheers!
“Rove’s imprimatur by bashing her *on FOX NEWS* and *ON THE NIGHT SHE WON THE NOMINATION* (the more so as “The Architect”) gave a social signal that she wasn’t going to be defended, so piling on would be OK.”
This is the correct explanation.
you missed the sarcasm tag </s> </sarcasm> etc
Overall, a good night though even though the country's divisions are even more stark. We're heading for a showdown.
I have said that over and over again.
If Rove said nothing, not one thing about that election would have changed.
He is merely the convenient excuse for the worst candidate we had this cycle.
Not taking responsibility for one's own flaws is not a conservative quality. O'Donnell was a loser, and she lost.
Had Rove said NOTHING (as he should have), the democrats would have, what--not brought up everything they did against her?
I see some of us are still disconnected from reality.
LOL!
That’s awesome.
Thanks for the ping!
(Vanity) A Closer Look at the Tea Party Losses
Thanks again, grey_whiskers.
“Look at the most contentious races: Delaware, Alaska, Colorado, Arizona.”
Don’t you mean Nevada, not Arizona?
Really Great article! You framed the issue pefectly.
Thats why we need to have anither speaker besides the presuned John Boehner.He’s with that establishment and willl ride herd to supress the new conservative house members.
What I think:
I think once the primary is finished, the party’s candidate decided, then EVERY GOPer should either support them, or shut up.
Having said that, O’Donnell should run for lower offices, get her own creds.
It is politically lame to expect somebody like her to make it in a Senate race.
Thanks for catching that.
Cheers!
Mitt couldn't, didn't, probably hurt, every single GOP candidate. His brand of bland, wishy washy, limp pseudo conservatism, paralyzed with a big dose of liberal Republican angst, just doesn't play well.How did his Muffy Redux, Meg Whitman do? Mitt really likes the Harvard blondes.
Well said
Well, what you call nationalizing could be called other things. Certainly there was much to be said for attacking Obama and his epic destructiveness to our economy. And O’Donnell should have asked whether the people of Delaware could afford to elect a self-confessed Communist to support Obama’s job-destroying Communist programs. But no need to appear on national TV shows; she could have done that within Delaware.
No question in my mind that Karl Rove destroyed O’Donnell’s chances of winning. Not just Republicans, but independents and undecided voters would have said to themselves, “Well, there must be something really wrong with Christine if even the REPUBLICAN WISE MEN are attacking her!”
The Driveby Media tried to use Meaghan McCain for the same purpose, but she has no real weight or substance. Same with Mr. Playgirl Centerfold. But Karl Rove does have the required weight and substance, at least for those who haven’t been paying close attention to what he really represents—RINO stupidity that undermined the Bush presidency repeatedly with bad advice and brought about the election disasters of 2006 and 2008.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.