GOP preparing for '14 primary fight

[Spesh]

Infighting has penetrated the highest levels of the House GOP leadership. Long-standing geographic tensions have increased, pitting endangered Northeastern Republicans against their colleagues from other parts of the country. Enraged tea party leaders are threatening to knock off dozens of Republicans who supported a measure that raised taxes on the nation's highest earners.

"People are mad as hell. I'm right there with them," Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, said late last week, declaring that she has "no confidence" in the party her members typically support. Her remarks came after GOP lawmakers agreed to higher taxes but no broad spending cuts as part of a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff."

"Anybody that voted 'yes' in the House should be concerned" about primary challenges in 2014, she said.

At the same time, one of the GOP's most popular voices, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, blasted his party's "toxic internal politics" after House Republicans initially declined to approve disaster relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy. He said it was "disgusting to watch" their actions and he faulted the GOP's most powerful elected official, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio...

What's largely causing the dissension? A lack of a clear GOP leader with a single vision for the party.

Republicans haven't had a consistent standard-bearer since President George W. Bush left office in 2008 with the nation on the edge of a financial collapse. His departure, along with widespread economic concerns, gave rise to a tea party movement that infused the GOP's conservative base with energy. The tea party is credited with broad Republican gains in the 2010 congressional elections, but it's also blamed for the rising tension between the pragmatic and ideological wings of the party — discord that festers still.

It was much the same for Democrats in the late 1980s before Bill Clinton emerged to win the White House and shift his party to the political center....

Frustrated conservative activists and GOP insiders hope that the continued focus on fiscal matters will help unite the factions as the party pushes for deep spending cuts. That fight also may highlight Democratic divisions because the party's liberal wing vehemently opposes any changes to Social Security or Medicare.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


As people on here stated during the election, the 2014 battles are going to be vastly more interesting.

The article briefly talks about the deep bench Republicans have coming up, but points out that many are now staking out on their own in ways that are sometimes at odds with their party.

[Locke]

I wouldn't assume that's necessarily a bad thing. Being at odds with a party that just got spanked up and down the country 2 months ago might be a good way to revitalize voters. People know the typical Republican isn't doing well in the polls lately. Bringing in someone like a Chris Christie, who is a conservative but doesn't buy into the retard-saturated Tea Party rhetoric, could be the only way to avert the slide the Republican party is experiencing. Obviously, the Republican fringe is going to be neutralized regardless. We're already seeing it happen gradually as Tea Party members decline, as well as their candidates lose their campaigns. Accelerating that process definitely couldn't hurt the Republicans, though....

[Spesh]

I wouldn't assume that's necessarily a bad thing. Being at odds with a party that just got spanked up and down the country 2 months ago might be a good way to revitalize voters. People know the typical Republican isn't doing well in the polls lately. Bringing in someone like a Chris Christie, who is a conservative but doesn't buy into the retard-saturated Tea Party rhetoric, could be the only way to avert the slide the Republican party is experiencing. Obviously, the Republican fringe is going to be neutralized regardless. We're already seeing it happen gradually as Tea Party members decline, as well as their candidates lose their campaigns. Accelerating that process definitely couldn't hurt the Republicans, though....

No argument from me that it wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing. I pointed it out to suggest that its going to be difficult for those to unify their party like Clinton did.

Christie in particular is earning enemies quickly and many blame him for helping Obama win re-election. As well, im not so certain that the fringe is likely to go away anytime soon. Granted, they didnt have the impact in '12 that they did in '10. But the tax increase has enraged them and Democrats are only going to try and increase it some more in the coming battles. Unless they get someone that can reason with the fringe without looking like a RINO(Romney certainly wasnt that guy, and Boehner hasnt had much success thus far) i can see the party growing more divided, and the public growing more weary of it, going into 2014 and especially 2016.

If losing to Obama and failing to grab more Senate seats this past election didnt cause the party to self-reflect and begin to change their image, im not sure what will.

[TheWalrus]

Good thread. I go back and forth on this. The historical trend would be for a Republican comeback in the next few cycles. But the internals of the Republican debate over their identity are going the wrong way for them, in my view. The stricter partisans seem to be winning, with the general rumbling especially about the last two presidential cycles being dominated by the notion that McCain and Romney lost because they were too moderate. The trendlines in the demographics clearly point to that being a foolish strategy, but it looks like they're going to try that for at least one cycle. Rubio might make it fly but it's the wrong trend overall, imo.

Not enough is being said about the rules change over the filibuster that appears will happen in the Senate. That's a game changer, especially for the tea party types. It's one thing to hold the line when you can actually stop bills from being passed, especially when your constituency believes that stopping the government dead in it's tracks, even on important matters like, you know, the budget, is a good way to govern. But it's a whole different thing to hold that line and not be able to stop bills like you're used to... and be so intractable as a matter of style you're unable to make bills "better".

[Spesh]

Good thread. I go back and forth on this. The historical trend would be for a Republican comeback in the next few cycles. But the internals of the Republican debate over their identity are going the wrong way for them, in my view. The stricter partisans seem to be winning, with the general rumbling especially about the last two presidential cycles being dominated by the notion that McCain and Romney lost because they were too moderate. The trendlines in the demographics clearly point to that being a foolish strategy, but it looks like they're going to try that for at least one cycle. Rubio might make it fly but it's the wrong trend overall, imo.

Not enough is being said about the rules change over the filibuster that appears will happen in the Senate. That's a game changer, especially for the tea party types. It's one thing to hold the line when you can actually stop bills from being passed, especially when your constituency believes that stopping the government dead in it's tracks, even on important matters like, you know, the budget, is a good way to govern. But it's a whole different thing to hold that line and not be able to stop bills like you're used to... and be so intractable as a matter of style you're unable to make bills "better".

Good point on the filibuster reform. Fanaticism(which i absolutely believe many of the tea party members indulge in) is always self-defeating because compromise is inevitably required in any aspect of life. That said, thus far they havent shown any hesitation to get dragged into the mud when stopping the government in its tracks. It wouldnt surprise me if many remained that intractable simply to avoid being linked to anything remotely looking like a compromise, even if it means letting bills pass by that they despise without touching them. That in of itself will get them out of office, but it would be a process.

If they were more than willing to be put in a damning political position by driving over the fiscal cliff, i could see the GOP refusing to adjust bills then complaining about what passed.

[TheWalrus]

Good point on the filibuster reform. Fanaticism(which i absolutely believe many of the tea party members indulge in) is always self-defeating because compromise is inevitably required in any aspect of life. That said, thus far they havent shown any hesitation to get dragged into the mud when stopping the government in its tracks. It wouldnt surprise me if many remained that intractable simply to avoid being linked to anything remotely looking like a compromise, even if it means letting bills pass by that they despise without touching them. That in of itself will get them out of office, but it would be a process.

If they were more than willing to be put in a damning political position by driving over the fiscal cliff, i could see the GOP refusing to adjust bills then complaining about what passed.

I dunno. I would assume that the tea party constituency would prefer to get 30% of what it wants by compromising rather than 0% of what they want on a bill that passes by just a few votes.

But then again, tea party types have never struck me as being very good at math.

[spydertl79]

The fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling are just made up ways of making us feel like we're solving the problem.

It's meaningless.

[MoFinz]

Nothing changes when nothing changes.......your next GOP candidate might as well be named George Obama or Barack Bush......how come people don't understand that there is no appreciable difference, and we will continue to be fed lame candidates as long as people allow it?

[Locke]

Nothing changes when nothing changes.......your next GOP candidate might as well be named George Obama or Barack Bush......how come people don't understand that there is no appreciable difference, and we will continue to be fed lame candidates as long as people allow it?

What's the alternative? Ron Paul was the exception to the rule, and he didn't stand a chance. Each party's base is going to vote for the same archetypal candidate...

[TheWalrus]

What's the alternative? Ron Paul was the exception to the rule, and he didn't stand a chance. Each party's base is going to vote for the same archetypal candidate...

Ron Paul would also be a terrible president, which I think most people grasped. People focus too much on the candidates being similar, in my opinion, as if what the process needs is a guy to come out and say he wants to replace the US Navy with rubber duckies. The real story is in why the candidates usually have so many similarities, which to me comes down primarily two things: 1) the campaign finance system, and 2) the fact that there is -- despite the way it seems -- something of a consensus on what to do about most issues.

There are very definite concrete things we can do about #1, and I believe we should do them. But #2 is just as big a part of it. The consensus will always drive a moderate, compromise position. Therefore, anyone who wants to be elected to national office must occupy some version of that moderation (and, amusingly, try to convince his base that a 3% change in income tax is either needed or Armageddon). People want to turn this into some kind of conspiracy because it's easier believing there are artificial forces manipulating the debate than realizing the truth... which is that very few people agree with them about issues they're passionate about.