Skip to comments.The Real Lesson from Mississippi
Posted on 06/27/2014 4:03:16 AM PDT by Hojczyk
On balance the Republican establishment has done fairly well this primary season. Its favored candidate in the Nebraska Senate race lost, and of course Eric Cantor went down to defeat, but Thad Cochran, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell all hung on. So, all is right in the world, right?
Not really. It is important to differentiate the candidates challenging the establishment from the voters backing those challengers. The candidates are either amateurs with no political background or upstarts who refuse to wait their place in line.
They often have fewer funds, employ less experienced consultants, and lack the personal assets necessary to campaign effectively. Occasionally, a virtuoso rock star like Marco Rubio emerges, but the typical insurgent is lucky just to know how to hold the guitar.
The problem for the Republican party writ large is that the Cochran-type does not seem like an outlier. People do not see the GOP as a party out to make the government smaller and smarter,
The partys leaders need to ask themselves: if their purpose is to perpetuate interest group liberalism, why should anybody vote for them? There is already a party whose central purpose is to carve up the federal pie for its clients/voters. It is called the Democratic party, and nobody does interest group liberalism better than it does.
People do not see the GOP as a party out to make the government smaller and smarter, to celebrate success, entrepreneurship, and innovation. They certainly do not see think it is trying to lift up the middle class. They see a party that perpetuates and expands government as it suits them, often to the benefit of the well-heeled interest groups that have descended upon the nations capital.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
The revolt has started.
Circa 1850 anyone? It is now coming apart faster than it did for the Whigs, and rightfully so.
Cochran is toast. Childers will run all over him, as conservatives stay home in November.
pathetic piece by an estab writer .but at least some truth is sinking in.
When you control the voting processes and procedures, you control the vote.
Anyone, even in Albany NY, knows that.
.....employ less experienced consultants, and lack the personal assets necessary to campaign effectively.
Sounds like GOPe favorite Mitt Romney
Even some establishment shills are starting to get it. And the larger point stands, the point we here at FR have been making for years. What reason does the GOP-E give swing voters to pull the lever for them if they are just Dem Lite?
Cochran can rot in hell.
Those states which allow "write-in" ballots, getting the required number of signatures yesterday,
Active dispute of primary results, psrticularly if irregularities can be proven - hint MS,
In the November mid-term elections, "hold your nose" and withhold your vote or vote heavily against any GOPe/RINO. If dims win, blame Shrub, ... So be it.
To borrow an adage - "At this point what difference does it make."
It is "us" versus "them" - and "them" are winning hands - down. Just think MS, SC, ... all fossils!
yeah, but this goes way way way way beyond “democrat lite” - what they did in Mississippi .
It’s a messed up system for sure. When push comes to shove however, I’ll take a moderate Republican over a liberal democrat...for now. Slowly but surely, we will prevail. They have to know that we will take more ground from them every year. Conservatism is inevitable in America. We need only endeavor to perservere.
That’s because too many folks who should be “us” don’t know it yet, and they don’t recognize many of “them” as “them.”
Two basic issues here - the GOP-E offers nothing beside Dem Lite, and are willing to engage in the worst kind of slime to hold on to their power - including trashing their base. AFAIC, this wasn’t the last straw, it was just another straw placed on top of the camel’s back that was already broken.
The 3 stooges.
The problem is, the GOP-E has shown us exactly how they view us. And will engage in scorched-earth campaigning to defeat us - far, far stronger and nastier stuff than they use against the Dems. So who are they really closer to?
Yes, it’s the “worst kind of slime” thing that makes this much different than the normal dem lite dynamic. But I think history will prove that Mississippi ends up being a lot more than just another straw on the camels back. This will be an anvil.
With universal suffrage, or something close approaching it, conservatism is unlikely to prevail. Not to say abandon conservative principles, they can certainly take root in your personal and family affairs, maybe even in a community and local government. But in a system as large as a state or the USA, the number of people who will vote money for themselves out of the public treasury will always outnumber those who advocate limited government and spending restraint. It's human nature at work, and history is littered with examples.
I don't mean to "back off" fighting the bastards. It's the only way to figuratively take them out and set an example.
-- I'll take a moderate Republican over a liberal democrat ... --
If Cochran prevails in the GOP primary, the race will be between a conservative DEM and a liberal GOP.
I’m pretty sure I am in the minority here, but I think it’s time for Conservatives in Mississippi to vote D in November... Send the pre-Alzheimer’s Cochran back to Mississippi as a loud and clear message to Karl, Haley and the rest of the “established” R’s that these tactics will not be rewarded.
To those who say this rewards Harry Reid ... well, probably.... but so what? Stalemated government (if the house grows some gonads) will be better in the long-run. If the R’s take the Senate, then Hillary will run against obstructionist R’s for the next 2 years, and with the IQ of the electorate, likely prevail in 2016! Better to let the D’s take ownership lock stock and barrel for the next 2 years and re-load for 2016 and sweep them all out.
It would help, however to get rid of Johnny Tears as Speaker and get someone effective at articulating Conservative ideas as Speaker of the House.
OK, flame away !!
The GOP claims to be experts at winning political races, and I say let them exercise their expertise. When they lose a race, it is their own fault.
One other thought crosses my mind. The GOP seems to do better at thrwarting the growth of government when the GOP is in the minority. The GOp grew the government by leaps and bounds under Bush II. They’ll do it again if they get a majority of both houses of Congress.
I am voting Childers. He is just as conservative if not maybe more.
Cochran is toast. Childers will run all over him, as conservatives stay home in November.
Nonsense. And before you begin wildly cheering for Republicans to go the way of the old Whigs, please remember some facts:
And that is not the path we wish to chose.
Far better to win hearts & minds individual by individual, soul by soul, and turn the huge ship slowly, rather than crashing it on the rocks, in hopes that a few will make it to life boats.
So don't hope to make Republicans go the way of the Whigs.
It's not good politics, and could be disastrous for the nation.
“It’s not good politics, and could be disastrous for the nation.”
Yea, everything is going along just swimmingly right now. I remember some sort of dribble coming from the stewards on the Titanic too. I see the current Republican Party sitting in their little life boat pumping sea water into the ship while it is going down.
I have my view, you have yours. Have a wonderful day.
It's already crashing on the rocks. GOP-e repubs are aiming for the throats of TEA Partiers and conservatives with far more intensity than they did vs. the democrats.
Time for a third party.
PLACE IN LINE????????
Just who the hell cares about ANYBODY’S place in “line”???
A third party only guarantees a smaller minority than today's Republicans, thus locking-in perpetual political dominance of majority Democrats, and ever-expanding Federal big-government.
Politics is all about winning friends & influencing people, which can't happen when you're too busy angrily splitting apart your old political alliances.
That primary in Mississippi is not the first time political skullduggery has caused the better man to lose, and doubtless won't be the last.
As they say, politics ain't bean bags.
Still, you need political friends, and you really need to keep your disputes "in the family".
Any chance the election will be overturned due to fraud?
So, why did the GOP choose that path? Methinks you are talking to the wrong audience, here. Party failures are assigned to the party. GOP losing credibility and popularity is a consequence of GOP decisions, actions, and communications.
I'm talking to anyone who claims the country needs a "third party" or that Republicans should self-destruct like the old Whigs.
I'm not trying to defend Thad Cochran, the first Mississippi Republican elected since Reconstruction.
I don't know him, or the facts of behind this case.
Indeed, I'll be delighted if the election get thrown out for cheating.
But so far as I can tell, the Republican party itself has only done there what it always does -- tries to win elections.
And one thing I know about Mississippi politics is: all the old-timers like Chochran are former Democrats, which means they know how to think & act like Democrats, and for Democrats, anything goes.
How do you suppose Democrats first became the dominant party, and have kept dominance all these -- not just years, not just decades -- centuries! ?
Democrats don't let any legal niceties stand in their way to victory, and Cochran was a born Democrat, at heart.
Indeed, Democrats only lose big-time when their own Fire Eaters split their party apart (as in 1860), or when they so thoroughly screw things up (i.e., 1952, 1968, 1980) the country is willing to look elsewhere for leadership.
The best Republicans can do on our own, without Democrat "help", is squeak out the kind of victory we saw in the 2000 election.
Cboldt: "GOP losing credibility and popularity is a consequence of GOP decisions, actions, and communications."
Today the GOP stands on the verge of a historic election victory, if we don't screw it up.
The country is rightly sick of Barack, Harry, Nancy & and all their Dems, and is more than ready for new leadership.
All we have to do is provide it, and not shoot ourselves in political circular firing squads.
FRiend, my 92-year-old mother from North Carolina is a Tea Partier, and she has never voted for a Democrat in her long life.
So I say God bless her, and God bless the Tea Party, but don't think for a minute she would want a Tea Party running candidates against Republicans in a general election.
If you seriously, seriously want a "third party", then go join the Liberal/Progressive Democrats, and split away from them!.
That's the kind of Third Party any conservative could love.
My point was that if the GOP goes down the drain, it is the GOP's fault. There is no sense of "should" in that, merely an assignment of blame if the party loses ground.
-- How do you suppose Democrats first became the dominant party, and have kept dominance all these -- not just years, not just decades -- centuries! ? --
By promising and delivering money from the public treasury, to its constituents. And it seems to me, the GOP is going down the same path. After all, that is how elections are won in political systems that adopt universal suffrage.
-- Today the GOP stands on the verge of a historic election victory, if we don't screw it up. --
Who is "we," kemosabe? Voters choose on the basis of self-interest, and the success of a party depends on the party's appeal to voters. The way I see it, when the GOP loses, it is the GOP's fault.
-- The country is rightly sick of Barack, Harry, Nancy & and all their Dems, and is more than ready for new leadership. --
I don't see the GOP supplying leadership, at this point. Just a watered-down flavor of "money for you, from the public treasury." Both parties are parties of solutions by the government.
I've voted all my life too, never for a DEM, and refuse to cast a ballot for Snowe, Collins, and a handful of other good-for-nothing GOP politicians. I find them to be incompetent, destructive, and dishonest. I will not, of my free will, help legitimize an out-of-control government by endorsing them or their likes.
In the Mississippi election, my order of preference in the general would be McDaniels, Childers, Cochran; and I wouldn't vote for Cochran. That order of preference, and refusal to support Cochran, is driven by the actions of Cochran and his support team. I'd much prefer them to act responsibly, but they choose not to.
Did you ever notice just how the same tune gets played over and over and over again? Well the Republican Party is caught now in an Aichie Breakie Heart syndrome and people who keep dancing to their music are just another part of the problem.
Just how many Roosevelt Democrats do you see just voting over and over again for the Democrat because it is the only thing they know? Just as many who still had the capability for critical thinking, they noticed the Party left them and moved to the only alternative as did many politicians who did not want to wait in their line of ascendency. They saw a new opportunity by just changing their affiliation but did nothing about changing their ideology.
Just as we are seeing in Iraq and Syria, and soon to be Afghanistan, when there is a lack of leadership it creates a vacuum. Something will fill that vacuum whether it be from within or a new outside force moving in. What we are seeing is that Progressives have been moving in for quite some time and it is just this runoff that pulled the curtain down.
I am sick and tired of the Chicken Little excuse of the sky will fall if we don’t have Foghorn Leghorn to protect us. Foghorn only cares about himself and I think it is high time that defenders of the GOPe recognize that simple fact. Despite all their lofty promises and dire warnings if they are not elected, it always stays the same. To me, using your now lame Chicken Little warnings is nothing more than proving Einstein’s definition of insanity.
When the Republicans had the Executive, Senate and House, they spent like drunken sailors even with a 9 seat majority in the Senate. The next Congress it was 50/50 with the VP as the tie breaker. What did the Republican Leadership do? Trent Lott split the baby and continued to lead from behind and the spending continued. In 2006, the Republicans were thrown out of control of both houses because they just could not help themselves.
There is an old saying that the truth shall set you free, but most have no idea what the rest of it is. It follows with but at first it will drive you insane.
The main issue we have with the GOPe is that nobody is leading, period. So if we have to go outside of the box to find leaders, dammit, we are going to do it.
Eventually, the money will run out and then it’s a brand new deal.
The GOP will not "go down the drain" unless somebody pushes it there, and the reasons are simple:
Cboldt: "By promising and delivering money from the public treasury, to its constituents.
And it seems to me, the GOP is going down the same path."
Republicans have never been the Conservative Party, for the simple reason, there aren't enough true conservatives nationwide to ever make a majority.
But Republicans have always been more conservative than Liberal/Progressive Democrats.
In national elections, conservative "third parties" (Libertarians, Constitutionalists) win about 1% of the popular vote.
If you wish to join the Libertarians or Constitutionalists, I'd say: go right ahead.
But no good can be accomplished by splitting Republicans into ever smaller minorities, thus guaranteeing Big-Government Democrats perpetual rule.
Cboldt: "The way I see it, when the GOP loses, it is the GOP's fault."
Well, of course, in a sense, though it's hard to see what "fault" Republicans have for losing, say, 93% of Black votes, or even 71% of Hispanic votes.
Cboldt: "Just a watered-down flavor of "money for you, from the public treasury."
Both parties are parties of solutions by the government."
Specifically, talking about Thad Cochran in Mississippi, sure.
He's a former Democrat, can think & act like Democrats.
But Republicans generally have always been more conservative than Democrats, and even more so since the 1960s.
Now, if you wish to be a "pure conservative", then you can join the political 1% who votes for Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates.
Cboldt: "In the Mississippi election, my order of preference in the general would be McDaniels, Childers, Cochran; and I wouldn't vote for Cochran."
Cochran's life-time ACU voting score is 79%, which puts him around mid-point amongst Republicans.
Cochran's 2013 ACU score is only 60%, which means he is slip-sliding away, but it's the same score as Mississippi's other Senator, Wicker, and better than Georgia's two Republican Senators, Chambliss & Isakson.
By stark contrast, the most "conservative" Democrat Senator, West Virginia's Manchin gets a 28% score from ACU -- the same as your own dearly beloved Republican Susan Collins. ;-)
So, one could well argue that between R-Collins and D-Manchin, there's no serious difference.
But there certainly is serious difference between, say, your Senator Collins (28%) and Mississippi Senator Cochran (60%).
And even bigger difference between Republican Cochran (60%) and a nearby Democrat like, say, Louisiana's Mary Landreu (12%).
So, I'd say anybody who'd throw away a 60%er in favor of a 12%er, should spend some quality time questioning their own sanity, FRiend.
So, if somebody's personal life goes down the drain, because they are not responsible, etc., it's somebody else's fault? I'm not buying it. Nobody is pushing the GOP except the movers and shakers inside the GOP. If, by "somebody pushes it there," you mean the GOP pushing itself, I agree.
-- Republicans have never been the Conservative Party, for the simple reason, there aren't enough true conservatives nationwide to ever make a majority. --
Okay. But, if it isn't conservative and/or doesn't provide conservative representation, the GOP is insane to think it will earn a substantial number of votes from people who desire conservative representation.
-- I'd say anybody who'd throw away a 60%er in favor of a 12%er, should spend some quality time questioning their own sanity, FRiend. --
You are the one questioning my sanity. I don't question yours, I just see you (approximately) as an enemy. Not that I see you as a personal threat, just we don;t agree, and so what to that. I'll not count you as a friend, anyway.
Quoting Otter (Animal House), "forget it, he's on a roll."
I give the American Conservative Union (ACU) some credit for knowing the difference between "conservative" and "not-conservative".
You can find their reports here.
ACU ranks seven Republican and every Democrat Senator as "less conservative" than Mississippi's Thad Cochran.
Indeed there are no Democrats -- none -- who are more conservative than even the most liberal Republican -- your own Senator Collins.
By the way, ACU ranks McConnell at 92% last year, and his fellow Kentuckian Paul at 90%.
So don't believe everything you read about them.
Of course, the fact that some Republicans are less conservative than we like is a matter of serious concern.
But the places to fight those battles are the primaries.
If we lose in the primaries, our recourse is not to throw out a less-than-ideally conservative Republican in favor of a radically liberal Democrat, but rather to vow to work harder the next time.
Of course, if you wish to join a genuinely conservative political party (i.e., the Constitution Party), I'd say that' fine.
But then don't expect to elect any candidates, or effect the course of government.
Cboldt: "You are the one questioning my sanity.
I don't question yours, I just see you (approximately) as an enemy.
Not that I see you as a personal threat, just we don;t agree, and so what to that.
I'll not count you as a friend, anyway."
FRiend, I don't question your sanity, I'm suggesting you should question your own, if you find yourself wishing to throw out a less-than-perfect Republican in favor of some lunatic liberal Democrat.
By the way, speaking of Collins, I notice now she's up for reelection this year, and since I don't follow Maine politics, maybe you can tell us how she's doing?
Is there a primary with a Tea Party candidate?
Besides yourself, are there any other real conservatives in Maine?
Oh, and one more thing: I said before you could well argue that R-Collins is no better than D-Manchin, but that is actually not correct.
Despite similar voting records & ACU rankings, there is a hugely significant difference between Collins and Manchin, a difference which can be summed up in two words: Harry Reid.
So, even a "moderate" RINO like Collins is still vastly superior to any Democrat alternative.
Just to be clear: The ACU has become a RINO operation, bestowing its highest 100% rating on MITCH McCONNELL just last year. MITCH McCONNELL!
FRiend, that's a very astute observation, and more-or-less defines our basic political problem: even when people switch parties, they often bring their old values (i.e., Big Government) with them, and expect to see those values expressed by their new political representatives.
For example, many of the so-called "Reagan Democrats" still want to see the Federal Government solving all their problems.
mazda77: "In 2006, the Republicans were thrown out of control of both houses because they just could not help themselves."
Sorry, but that argument makes no sense, when you consider: immediately after Democrats took charge, they began a spending spree which made Republicans look like pikers.
So the bigger cause of Republican downfall was simply the War on Terror, especially Iraq, which had not gone as well, or ended as quickly, as the Bush people had lead people to expect.
Indeed, consider this: there's virtually nobody today who, had they been told of conditions in 2014 back in 2001, would have voted for the course laid out.
Of course, we don't know now how it will all end, but as of today, sure looks like a lot of serious effort, blood and treasure are being p*ssed away.
mazda77: "There is an old saying that the truth shall set you free, but most have no idea what the rest of it is.
It follows with but at first it will drive you insane."
Here is the full context for your quote from John 8:32.
You'll notice Jesus says nothing about driving somebody insane.
A distinction without a difference.
-- speaking of Collins, I notice now she's up for reelection this year, and since I don't follow Maine politics, maybe you can tell us how she's doing? --
Or maybe you could just look it up. United States Senate Election in Maine, 2014.
-- Besides yourself, are there any other real conservatives in Maine? --
-- So, even a "moderate" RINO like Collins is still vastly superior to any Democrat alternative. --
True, at least for Maine. I think not necessarily true, overall. Each candidate stands on his or her own positions and actions.
On the whole, the Maine GOP, like the Maine DEM party, is a group of moneyed insiders, out to feather its own nest. Le Page is doing a nice job up here in the governor's spot. I'll vote for him.
I use news reports and ACU ratings (and other written material like pundit remarks, blog posts, etc.) as a "lead" for doing my own research. After following the US Senate closely, for a few years, it is a no-brainer for me to conclude that the news reports are incomplete at best, and generally misleading. I feel the same way about ACU summaries. My opinion of McConnell is informed by a years-long period of observation.
Sorry, my mistake, misread the ACU numbers.
For 2013, McConnell ranks 90% and Paul 96% -- not the 90% I reported.
Yes, both ranked 100% in 2012, but Paul's lifetime score is 99% compared to McConnell's 90%.
ACU puts Coburn, Cruz & Lee at the top of the 2013 Conservative class, with 100% scores.
Twenty-one Republican senators scored 80% or higher, including McConnell, Paul, Rubio, Thune and my own Toomey.
Among the lowest scoring Republicans are Maine's Collins and Kirk from Illinois.
So those ACU ratings seem to reflect reality pretty well.
Do you know of a service which does the job better?
Please note my correction in post #46 above.
McConnell & Paul both scored a perfect 100% in 2012, but in 2013 McConnell fell to 90% while Paul maintained 96%.
So, seems to me, both fall into the category of "solid conservatives", and I get the feeling McConnell is receiving a bum-rap.
His overall score is not as bad as the vitriol directed at him suggests.
Can Republicans do better than McConnell?
Maybe -- I would vote for leadership by somebody with a perfect 100% or near perfect score.
But I'm not going to howl protests against somebody who's "only" 90%, if that's the best we can do, politically.
So here's my question to you: if you dispute ACU's scores, which organization do you suggest does a better job of it?
Only Jesus like purity will be acceptable. Any thing short is unacceptable
We can be silly, or we can look for flawed men who yet have the spirit of Christ obviously operating in their lives.