Tales of Woe The myth of a powerful Republican establishment.

Weekly Standard ^ | 26 feb 2012 | NOEMIE EMERY

[rellimpank]

Late in 2003, Charles Krauthammer coined the phrase “Bush Derangement Syndrome” to describe the rage of the left at our 43rd president, a loathing so intense that when the president was reelected his anguished opponents needed grief therapy simply to cope. This morphed in time into Palin Derangement, which infected the elites of both parties. And now some on the right have come down with a similar affliction​—​Establishment, and/or RINO Derangement​—​the belief that a Republican party elite is conspiring against them and is behind all of their woes. The symptoms are a sense of intense persecution along with one of perpetual grievance, and a feeling of having been wronged by unscrupulous people, endowed with magical powers that allow them all too often to triumph, in spite of their being so wrong. Out of this has grown a series of what Mona Charen calls fables designed to make the victims feel better and avoid looking hard at their vulnerabilities. This may work in the sense of affording condolence. But the myths are simply not true

[FlipWilson]

“There is no Republican Establishment” says the official publication of the Republican Establishment.

[philman_36]

Too funny! Emery allows two as valid yet disallows the third with only conjecture as evidence.

[philman_36]

@
Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."

[johncatl]

Who is responsible for this column? Boehner?

[Cicero]

Republican Establishment to Noemie: “Psst! We don’t exist!”

[rellimpank]

--my favorite Reagan quote--"when you are going over a cliff with all flags flying, you are still going over a cliff"--

--I will no doubt be posting this several times in the next few months---

[GenXteacher]

She waves her hand and says “This is not the Republican Establishment you are looking for. Drive on.”

[randita]

As Jim Geraghty notes, movement conservatives tend to believe that their base is larger than that of the moderates (as well as more virtuous) and that their ideas are more popular; hence defeat in a fair fight is not possible. Thus if they lose, the fight must not be fair, and there must be a reason. If no reason seems clear, then one must be invented. Hence the belief in strange plots.

At some point, reality has to be faced. Chasing after conspiracy theories is fruitless and diversionary.

[KeyLargo]

Barf Alert!

Arizona’s Gov. Brewer endorses Romney

By Stephen Dinan

The Washington Times

Sunday, February 26, 2012

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination on Sunday, saying he is the most electable candidate in the field.

“He’s the man that can carry the day,” Mrs. Brewer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

[VRWC For Truth]

The Gelding Old Party is heading for the glue factory. They are now believing their own press releases.

[House Atreides]

And the Weekly Standard wonders why folks such as me are former subscribers and not current subscribers to their magazine.

Their idea of fiscal responsibility is to reduce the annual federal budget deficits that are running over a trillion dollars a year by 100 billion dollars. Yeah, THAT will solve all our problems.

[jakota]

Count how many times Jeb Bush’s name is mentioned in the next month before you tell me there is no ‘establishment’! (or Mitch Daniels)

[RobbyS]

Reagan made a deal with the moderate Republicans AFTER he won. He took George H.W. Bush in the relatively harmless position of vice-president. He also made a deal with the pro-life movement, thus going to his social right as he went toward the party center. x

[Henry Hnyellar]

The thinking in the article is rather simplistic. It does not account for the fact that few good conservative ever had a chance at the party’s nomination. This is because most never ran. Why?

[Fightin Whitey]

The existence of the Mitt of the Republican Establishment confirms the reality of The Myth of the Republican Establishment.

[staytrue]

The 2012 primary campaign has been an exaggerated version of this dynamic, with one credentialed ex-moderate running against a social conservative who served only five years in the House, a marketing whiz who was a political half-wit, a former speaker dethroned by his caucus, an ex-senator who lost his last race by 18 points, a 76-year-old member of the House with an eccentric agenda, and a four-term Texas governor whose résumé was impressive, but who tripped over his tongue and his feet. It took no manipulation by sinister forces to eliminate most of them. Conservatives did run, but not the best of them. This was not a dark RINO plot.

I agree with this. Anyone want to disagree ?

The fact is the resumes of the not Romneys are not as solid as Romney. We don't even refer to the not Romneys by their real names, only that they are not Romney.

[Darren McCarty]

I halfway disagree.

What Romney brings to the table is money. The establishment and especially consultant class, loves self-funders and thinks one can win on that alone. What it does do is scare a lot of people from running in the first place, so that we are stuck with a lot like what we have here.

[Col Freeper]

The 2012 primary campaign has been an exaggerated version of this dynamic, with one credentialed ex-moderate running against a social conservative who served only five years in the House, a marketing whiz who was a political half-wit, a former speaker dethroned by his caucus, an ex-senator who lost his last race by 18 points, a 76-year-old member of the House with an eccentric agenda, and a four-term Texas governor whose résumé was impressive, but who tripped over his tongue and his feet. It took no manipulation by sinister forces to eliminate most of them. Conservatives did run, but not the best of them. This was not a dark RINO plot.

---------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this. Anyone want to disagree ?

The fact is the resumes of the not Romneys are not as solid as Romney. We don't even refer to the not Romneys by their real names, only that they are not Romney.

=========================================================

Yes, I disagree.

This is just another article attempting to ridicule Conservatives who are recognizing the inbred conditions that have arisen between those known to be against Conservatives, and those previously assumed to be friends and supporters of Conservatives.

Romney's resume is solid alright, so solidly identified here on FR as not Conservative, that pushing for him on this forum has clearly been identified as a no-no by the site owner.

If you want to continue to participate on FR, I suggest you reconsider your inputs carefully from this point forward.

Also, I don't know who you are referring to as "We", but the other candidates are regularly referred to by their names on FR, vice always being referred to as "not-Romneys".

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

What Romney brings to the table is money. The establishment and especially consultant class, loves self-funders and thinks one can win on that alone. What it does do is scare a lot of people from running in the first place, so that we are stuck with a lot like what we have here.

If, indeed, he didn’t do some hatchet work on Palin to keep her out of the race, as is seriously suggested here . . .

George H.W. Bush won once and lost once as an establishmentarian

Incorrect. George H.W. Bush won once as Reagan’s heir, and lost once as an establishmentarian