Posted on 05/09/2010 5:56:10 PM PDT by FTJM
Republican officials sought to unify the party after Saturday's tea-party driven ouster of three-term Utah Republican Senator Robert Bennett.
Mr. Bennett became the year's first victim of the anti-incumbent fervor sweeping through the Republican Party when he lost his bid for his party's nomination at a state GOP convention here. GOP activists blasted him as a Washington insider who had lost touch with Utah's conservative ideals and will instead nominate a tea party-backed populist candidate who promises adherence to conservative principles.
The GOP candidate hasn't yet been chosen, but it will be one of Mr. Bennett's two challengers, businessman Tim Bridgewater and lawyer Mike Lee, both favored by the tea party and who will face off in a June 22 primary. The winner will be favored to win the general election in this heavily Republican state.
Mr. Bennett has missed the filing deadline to run as an independent contestant, but he can run as a write-in candidate.
Mr. Bennett has missed the filing deadline to run as an independent contestant, but he can run as a write-in candidate. In congratulating his two opponents he appeared not to be favoring that option, and a Bennett spokeswoman on Sunday said a write-in campaign was unlikely.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sucks to be him. That the Wards weren't all behind him, and the Temple tells the Wards how to think, cost him.
Sucks to be him. That the Wards weren't all behind him, and the Temple tells the Wards how to think, cost him.
RINOs in Utah are held to a higher standard.
True and I hear she is not running again.
You’ve basically confirmed that Utah is a defacto theocracy.
Having actually gone there on business before I already knew this. But I would figure that they would far rather do something like this in a primary itself than through a convention. Mitt Romney managed to get 89% of the vote in a primary and we all know there was only one reason for that.
With a convention you run the risk of non-Mormon interests having a vehicle with which they could use to fight Temple control of the state. Then again, I don’t live there and I’m not a Mormon elder so I guess I shouldn’t speak on these things
Jonas, you’re stuttering again.
Our only chance of saving the Republic is to vote all incumbents out of office.
Good, bad or ugly. They have to go. Corruption is too deep.
Suggest you re-read your American history.
As a political movement, "populism" is a coalition of so-called "little people" who demand government intervention in their favor vis-a-vis "big corporations" and "the rich".
See Bryant, William Jennings.
Anybody who wants smaller, less intrusive government -- as Palin does -- is demonstrably not a "populist".
For two years now the lamestream press has been lamenting a lack of leadership in the Republican Party. Who is the leader of the GOP they asked as though they were concerned with our welfare. Article after article pointed to a party wandering aimlessly in search of a purpose and wondering who was in charge. Thanks to the Tea Party movement we have finally answered that question. “The people” have seized control of the Republican Party, and woe unto the politician who fails to listen to them.
Why not. Conservatism means being opposed to government intervention in the marketplace, period. That means no bailouts and no subsidies for financial firms and corporations. That's what driving the Tea Party movement.
Populism has many definitions. You're thinking in terms of left-leaning populism, the kind that Democrats used to advocate.
Noun
S: (n) populism (the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite)
Each State political party can set their own nominating guidelines.
Jack Kemp, may he rest in peace, was a Conservative Populist.
It works exactly like that.
There are populist conservatives and populist liberals.
I was going to say the same thing. How in the world could a Conservative candidates who swears to represent Conservative ideals be termed a “populist”. First the GOP says we need more “moderates” to win elections, and now they are trying to paint Tea-Party backed candidates who support TRUE Conservative ideals of smaller government, and Freedom as populist? The idea is laughable frankly... What will they try next?
I think you may be confusing “Popular” with “Populist”.
The Maine Republican Party had our Convention last weekend, and on Saturday 5/8 passed a new platform that completely replaces the former one.
http://paintmainered.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2731571:Topic:31119
- OR - :
http://paintmainered.ning.com/forum/attachment/download?id=2731571%3AUploadedFi38%3A31117
I was a Delegate there, and frankly didn’t think that it stood the proverbial snowball’s chance - so was quite pleasantly surprised when it did!
The “Progressive / Moderate” Republicans, the Democrats, and the media are virtually apoplectic, needless to say.
There are a couple of things in there that I would have left out... like “Austrian Economy”.. what’s up with that??
It is, however, no less than a R3Volutionary document to get past the Snowe / Collins party establishment!
Gee; you’d almost think that there was a Tea Party in the house up here in dark blue People’s Ripublik of Maine, wouldn’t ya?
You got that right. Anyone thinks that the Mormon church had anything to do with Bennett's loss is shocking misinformed about this race.
It really is embarrassing for you.
Laughably stupid comment. It was Bennett's vote on the bailout that cost him.
Mormon church had zero to do with it.
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.