Skip to comments.Talk of GOP primaries follows “fiscal cliff” vote
Posted on 01/05/2013 10:48:23 AM PST by Olog-hai
Republicans in Congress who took the politically risky step of voting to raise taxes now find themselves trying to fend off potential primary challenges next year from angry conservatives.
These lawmakers wasted little time in attempting to deliver an explanation that would be acceptable to the tea party and the GOPs right flank, and, perhaps, insulate themselves from a re-election battle against a fellow Republican. Theyve started defending last weeks vote as one that preserves tax cuts for most Americans, while also promising to fight for spending cuts in upcoming debates over raising the nations borrowing limit.
It was the first time in two decades that a significant number of Republicans voted for a tax increase: 33 senators and 85 representatives, who broke with the House GOP majority to support the bill that averted the fiscal cliff but raised taxes on upper incomes.
Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, put it this way: Its not too early to be looking at 2014. I think there are going to be a lot of primary challenges. People are fed up.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I’m less worried about the fiscal cliff vote and more worried about pending votes on gun control and dream acts. The fiscal cliff thing was not that big of a deal and now we can accuse Obama of raising taxes on the middle class. If they don’t hold the line on gun control and the dream act, it will be time to start talking about primaries IMHO.
I would be VERY WORRIED of a challenge if I voted to re-install Boener.
Good. Let them worry.
They deserve to worry.
Primaries won’t be as bad a problem as third-party conservative candidates in the general election.
They’ll devastate Republicans of all types.
Including Boehner’s RINO courtiers.
AP is doing their usual best to continue to divide the GOP.
But Dems will be plenty angry that Obama did not go after estate taxes like he said he would and now he has to address spending cuts. Cuts are a topic AP wants to avoid in order to not upset the left. They'd rather talk about GOP division.
The most effective way to change the party is getting out to the state conventions and changing the policy making structure and putting conservatives in Republican National committee seats.
Tea partiers did it in Michigan last spring and it only takes a few hundred votes.
Need to start a new Party.
Spending is going to rise until the next debt limit is reached and they will simply raise it again.
How long are conservatives going to fall for the word 'cuts'!
Let's see how he does. I suspect he'll continue to try to use the gun issue to evade the topic.
“They deserve to worry.”
What they really deserve is to lose their jobs since they are NOT doing what we elected them to do.
I often wonder if the media owns the Democratic Party or if the Democratic Party owns the media. Sometimes I suspect the former.
There is not a third party candidate who can win, man or woman, Republican or not. These are always empty word.
If conservatives split the vote such that a RAT is elected, we’ll just get to where the RINOs are taking us faster.
Besides, I’d rather be stabbed in the front by a RAT than stabbed in the back by a RINO.
Well sequestration is the big one and that lies just ahead.
When or if you hear them starting to talk about reforming Social Security rather than cutting federal programs-employees-bureaucracy-benefits, then you know that they have sold out.
When? Where have you been? That’s all I have heard so far.
I hear it too. That’s why I posted this. Social Security reform is not part of what was agreed to as Sequestration to set in in 2013. They got their tax increases. Now we need to see Sequestration cuts set in.
They don’t have to win they just have to be so mad they don’t care if the Dem wins.
There were several races this year where conservative third-party candidates caused R losses, there’ll be dozens next year if Boehner keeps this up.
No one in DC, from either Party, has any intention of doing anything to slow spending.
I’m not worried about Georgia Republican Congressmen. I think they’ll do the right things, including stopping Obama’s Gun Grab. However, I am deeply sure that both of my two Georgia Senators will appease the media and vote for a ban of some sort. It is this and many other reasons why I am not going to vote for Saxby Chambliss in 2014, nor will I vote for Johnny Isakson when he comes up for re-election.
The only reason Boehner is still there is because the Repubs didn't follow through ans push for a challenger. Those that voted for Boehner again were voting against Pelosi who was the only other one who could have taken the seat. Bad as Boehner is, can you imagine Pelosi heading a majority repub House with Reid at the helm of the Senate? It would have pretty much negated the slight edge we have in the House.
Naa...Even if Pelosi had more votes, she still would not have been Speaker unless she got to 218 votes, which wasn’t going to happen. The result would have been a House without a Speaker, and more votes. Eventually Boener might have won, or might have withdrawn (as he almost did), with Cantor or someone else getting to 218.
That would have been GREAT as far as I’m concerned, by teaming up with Democrats to push Obama’s plan through, he has NO BUSINESS being Speaker anymore - but we’re stuck with him.
Thanks for the explanation - I was watching some of the voting and was under the impression that whoever got the most votes automatically won and all the Dims were voting for Pelosi.
Any time. I had read some articles on how the voting worked, and figured you hadn’t.
Depends. If you’re talking about entitlements you’re talking about cuts in growth. If you’re talking about the Defense cuts, those would be actual jobs cut.
Would the actual Defense budget be smaller then it was the last year-no.