It's Rove and Co. vs. Tea Party: Let the GOP civil war begin

[jimmy olsen]

Here's hoping the establishment prevails. I'm skeptical that it will though.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16837836-first-thoughts-gop-establishment-strikes-back?lite

First Thoughts: GOP establishment strikes back

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower, NBC News

*** GOP establishment strikes back: This year was always going to be about two big political stories -- President Obama's ability to work with congressional Republicans (on the budget, immigration), and the Republican Party's effort to define itself after its shellacking in 2012. And today we examine that second story. The Sunday New York Times reported that the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads organization is creating an offshoot, called the Conservative Victory Project, to counter the influence of groups like Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund. Its mission: to spend money in GOP primaries to make sure that candidates like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Sharron Angle, and Christine O'Donnell don't become the nominees for key Senate contests. "In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election," the Times said, adding that the Conservative Victory Project's first effort could be in Iowa, where conservative Rep. Steve King is mulling a Senate bid.

*** Republicans, let's get ready to ... rumble: Rove and Crossroads promised that they would launch this kind of effort, after losing winnable Senate races in Missouri and Indiana last year, as well as in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada in 2010. Yet this establishment effort to nominate better candidates is probably going to make things more painful in the short term, not less. First, these conservative groups are already firing back. "Both the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund ... mocked the new initiative as yet another hapless establishment-side attempt to muzzle the GOP base," Politico writes. "Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller essentially responded by pointing to the scoreboard in recent primaries in which conservative insurgents have prevailed and emerged as influential GOP leaders. 'They are welcome to support the likes of Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst,' Keller said of the new Crossroads group." Second, the establishment-backed candidates haven't always succeeded in general elections, either. After all, folks like Denny Rehberg in Montana and Rick Berg in North Dakota also lost winnable races last year. And third, how much credibility does Crossroads have after its results last year? Bottom line: This effort was bound to happen, but this is going to be ugly -- as both the populist and establishment wings try to become, well, the NEW establishment. The question is whether these more public primary fights help redefine the party in time for 2016.

[Sheilbh]

Why'd you want the establishment to prevail? Surely they're the ones to blame for things getting to this sort of situation.

[MadImmortalMan]

My only question is which side would be more appealing to voters if they win the struggle.

[Maximus]

Why'd you want the establishment to prevail? Surely they're the ones to blame for things getting to this sort of situation.

Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.

[Valmy]

Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.

That is not a very revolutionary point of view

[MadImmortalMan]

Why'd you want the establishment to prevail? Surely they're the ones to blame for things getting to this sort of situation.

Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.

They could be less electable though.

[DGuller]

Hopefully establishment wins, but not before realizing that they have to cool down the overheated divisve rhetoric, or the extremist scum will keep splintering off after mistaking the useful bullshit for truth.

[Maximus]

They could be less electable though.

A positive if they're worse.

[Sheilbh]

Why'd you want the establishment to prevail? Surely they're the ones to blame for things getting to this sort of situation.

Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.

No. But they're necessary to smash the old establishment. As I say they're the ones who enabled the rise of the Tea Party and they're (with the honourable exception of Rove) the leadership that have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. That's not an establishment that's worth defending or cheering on.

But I think it's a false choice. Firstly because I don't think the Tea Party is that coherent and tightly bound. Is Rubio still a Tea Partier, for example?

Secondly because it doesn't mention the figures (who've attracted lots of conservative and Tea Party support in the past) who I'd expect to form a new establishment. People like, for example, Christie, Jindal, Rubio and, based on early reports, Cruz.

I think that's a far more promising base for a party than the Karl Roves or Bill Kristols.

[garbon]

I would think Tim considers them part of the establishment as they are all fairly mainstream at this point.

[crazy canuck]

Any chance of a more electable third option emerging?  Something along the lines of what happened in Canada when the right had to remake itself.

[katmai]

[merithyn]

Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.

That is not a very revolutionary point of view

He's Canadian. They don't have revolutions. They fight The Power with attrition.

Queen: Do we still own that nation in North America?
Prime Minister: Yes, ma'am.
Queen: Why?
Prime Minister: Because we haven't gotten rid of them yet, and they haven't left on their own?
Queen: Hmm. I say we cut them loose.
Prime Minister: Very good, ma'am.
Canadians: We win!

[Neil]

Wouldn't it make more sense to base the new Republicans on Richard Nixon, the greatest Republican of them all?

[Razgovory]

I have a question:  Is the "establishment" materially different from the "tea party"?  I mean ideologically.  Bobby Jindal came out two weeks ago with a speech about how the GOP needs to stop being the "stupid" party.  This meant, they need to stop saying stupid things that are repellant to voters.  However he also said that he didn't want the Republican party to really change it's platform or water down it's ideas.  These seems like an impossible task, stupid statements naturally flow from stupid policies and ideas.  So long as they hold to the same beliefs people are going to articulate them.  Just giving the car a new paint job won't help a car much if it has a cracked engine block.