PDA

View Full Version : Senate GOP Leaders Look to Water Down Tea Party Ideology




FrankRep
10-29-2010, 09:17 PM
http://www.kochsoft.com/tna/logo.png (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
The New American Magazine on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-New-American-Magazine/146909368666979)



“You might as well know right now … that the Tea Party, no matter how successful it is at the polls in November, will certainly betray the party of liberty,” wrote Lew Rockwell, proprietor of LewRockwell.com, on September 22. by Michael Tennant


Senate GOP Leaders Look to Water Down Tea Party Ideology (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5034-senate-gop-leaders-look-to-water-down-tea-party-ideology)


Michael Tennant | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
29 October 2010


“You might as well know right now … that the Tea Party, no matter how successful it is at the polls in November, will certainly betray the party of liberty,” wrote Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/prepare-for-betrayal155.html), proprietor of LewRockwell.com, on September 22.
In addition to identifying philosophical problems among Tea Party candidates, Rockwell explained that “once they take office … the serious problems begin. They are leaned on by their new colleagues, the party elites, related financial interests, the press, and the entire system of which they are now part. Are they going to make themselves enemies of that system, or are they going to work within the system in order to achieve reform, and not just for one term but more terms down the line? Doing a good job means being part of the structure; doing a bad job means being an enemy of the very system that they now serve.” He concludes that most will choose to join the establishment, saying, “It is for this reason that newly seated ‘revolutionary’ politicians will betray those who put them in power. It happens like clockwork, same as day turns to night.”

As if to prove Rockwell’s point, MSNBC reports (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39875721/ns/politics-decision_2010/) that the GOP establishment in the Senate is already preparing to assume the role of Star Trek’s Borg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_%28Star_Trek%29), announcing to the newly minted Tea Party Senators: “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”

Ken Strickland, NBC News Senate producer, writes that while the Tea Party candidates “defeated establishment-favored GOP contenders in their states’ primaries by promising to upset the status quo in Washington, former and current Republican aides aren’t expecting a political earthquake. They say they’re confident that [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell will deftly handle the new conservative arrivals by incorporating them — and their ideas — into the larger caucus.” This will need to take place because, a former GOP leadership aide told Strickland, McConnell must direct the Tea Party’s ideological energy “in a way that’s productive rather than destructive or harmful to Senate Republicans or the country in general.” In other words, the Republican establishment considers these upstart conservatives destructive to both the party and the country and must therefore blunt their opposition to ever larger government in order to save both.

Just how will McConnell go about this? First, says Strickland, he’ll try to bribe them with “coveted slots on committees that serve their constituents’ interests.” If that doesn’t work, the next step is to “encourage new members to take a leading role in introducing legislation that addresses one of their campaign agenda items, but in a more scaled-back way,” such as cutting funding for certain Department of Education programs rather than trying to abolish the department outright — something the Republican leadership promised to do back in 1994.

According to Strickland, “GOP sources believe McConnell will try to distill one simple theme for the new members as they bring their campaign promises into his governing body: Don’t do anything that will divide Republicans and unite Democrats.” That pretty well eliminates all but the most timidly conservative proposals and ensures that government will continue to grow at the expense of liberty.

Strickland further dampens hopes for any real change as a result of Tea Party victories at the polls:



Most of the GOP insiders feel that, when all the votes are tallied, the Senate Republican conference will generally look the same in the next Congress as it does now — just larger. The caucus will likely contain a small bloc of Tea Party-inspired conservatives, a small moderate bloc, and a large bloc of more traditional Republicans who typically align with leadership.

“The proportions don’t change,” the GOP strategist said. “The size simply gets bigger.”


With the new conservative Senators making up such a small portion of the party’s representation in the Senate, they are unlikely to wield much influence. In fact, Strickland expects them to vote with the leadership most of the time because “their ultimate objectives will still be aligned with those of their caucus leaders.” Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, told Strickland, “The fact is that Republicans will continue to unite behind the common goals of reducing spending, slowing the growth of government and repealing and replacing the health spending bill.” The reader will note that this agenda is somewhat less than ambitious — it calls only for “slowing” government growth, not reversing it, and for “replacing” ObamaCare, probably with House Republicans’ “ObamaCare lite” proposal (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/3889-gop-favored-alternatives-to-obamacare).

The one bright spot in Strickland’s account is that if Republicans do take the Senate — a difficult but not impossible feat — “all bets are off.” With the party having the power to set the agenda, newcomers and their allies such as Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina (disparaged by GOP insiders who spoke with Strickland) may feel emboldened to push for significant reductions in government rather than accepting the crumbs the leadership throws to them. Republican control could, as Strickland avers, force McConnell to “[struggle] to hold the factions of his party together while trying to move major legislation,” but at least the party won’t be unified around offering watered-down versions of Democrats’ proposals.

All in all, Strickland paints a rather depressing picture of the potential for real change in the Senate regardless of how many Tea Party candidates are seated in January. Chances are the situation in the House isn’t much different, especially given that the sheer number of Representatives ensures that each one’s influence, and particularly that of newcomers, is greatly diminished. If this is what Tea Partiers get for all their hard work, they ought to throw the GOP overboard in 2012.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5034-senate-gop-leaders-look-to-water-down-tea-party-ideology

merrimac
10-29-2010, 09:31 PM
This more or less sums up what I fear.

My hope would be that the tea party senators and representatives realize they can't afford to betray the people who made them. If they can form some sort of small tea party alliance they will have a lot of media attention and they may have the guts to take on the Republican leadership. I really hope Rand doesn't betray us.

Anti Federalist
10-29-2010, 09:54 PM
Less Pessimistic Prediction: The TEA Partiers form their own caucus — and eventually their own party — and throw sand into the gears of this insanity.

TCE
10-29-2010, 10:18 PM
Toomey=Establishment.
Rubio=Establishment.
Ron Johnson=Establishment.

Angle, Buck, Rand, Miller would be the only four real "Tea Party" Senators. And for our sake, we just care about them expanding liberty, and Rand would probably be the only one interested in doing that. I suspect virtually every Republican Senatorial candidate elected will scale back their rhetoric and silently join the GOP.

kahless
10-29-2010, 10:26 PM
If the establishment fights them I hope all the newly elected all bolt the GOP at same time to a newly formed 3rd party. This would ultimately and deservedly so destroy the Republican party.

I doubt that will happen and most likely we will see them go down the road of betrayal.

cindy25
10-29-2010, 10:35 PM
Toomey will be better than Spector, Rand will be better than Bunning, Angle better than Reid, Miller better than Murkowski, Buck better than Bennett. even Fiorina would be better than Boxer.

Johnson I am not as sure, only because Feingold voted against the patriot act.

TCE
10-29-2010, 10:54 PM
Toomey will be better than Spector, Rand will be better than Bunning, Angle better than Reid, Miller better than Murkowski, Buck better than Bennett. even Fiorina would be better than Boxer.

Johnson I am not as sure, only because Feingold voted against the patriot act.

Fiorina is going to lose, so that part is irrelevant. We are mostly switching Neo Cons for liberals. No liberty net gain. Specter was better on some things than Toomey and vice-versa. Otherwise, besides Rand, it is mostly a lesser of two evils exchange. Sure, Angle, Buck, and Miller could surprise us, but that remains to be seen.

AuH20
10-29-2010, 10:57 PM
Angle, Rand and Miller intrigue me greatly. Angle doesn't vote yes on anything like Ron and really despises the GOP behind the scenes. She aligns much more with the ACP than the GOP.

malkusm
10-29-2010, 11:09 PM
Toomey=Establishment.
Rubio=Establishment.
Ron Johnson=Establishment.

Angle, Buck, Rand, Miller would be the only four real "Tea Party" Senators. And for our sake, we just care about them expanding liberty, and Rand would probably be the only one interested in doing that. I suspect virtually every Republican Senatorial candidate elected will scale back their rhetoric and silently join the GOP.

Everyone forgets Mike Lee. For God's sake, how big and bold do I have to write it to make it stick in people's heads around here?

Mike Lee. Utah.

Fozz
10-29-2010, 11:09 PM
DeMint has never been co-opted so I'm currently not as pessimistic.

Angle, Lee, and Paul, and possibly Toomey and Buck (if he wins) will likely remain true to the Tea Party principles.

However, I think Rubio, Ron Johnson, and Rossi will sell out.

AuH20
10-29-2010, 11:11 PM
DeMint has never been co-opted so I'm currently not as pessimistic.

Angle, Lee, and Paul, and possibly Toomey and Buck (if he wins) will likely remain true to the Tea Party principles.

However, I think Rubio, Ron Johnson, and Rossi will sell out.

Rove's people are financially backing Rubio and grooming him for higher office if you get my drift. Prepare for the Cuban Obama. ;)

malkusm
10-29-2010, 11:11 PM
DeMint has never been co-opted so I'm currently not as pessimistic.

Angle, Lee, and Paul, and possibly Toomey and Buck (if he wins) will likely remain true to the Tea Party principles.

However, I think Rubio, Ron Johnson, and Rossi will sell out.

Mike Lee. Utah.

Fozz
10-29-2010, 11:12 PM
Toomey=Establishment.
Rubio=Establishment.
Ron Johnson=Establishment.

Angle, Buck, Rand, Miller would be the only four real "Tea Party" Senators. And for our sake, we just care about them expanding liberty, and Rand would probably be the only one interested in doing that. I suspect virtually every Republican Senatorial candidate elected will scale back their rhetoric and silently join the GOP.

Toomey isn't establishment. The GOP establishment opposed him in 2004, and he's always been more of a DeMint type.

malkusm
10-29-2010, 11:12 PM
Yes, I will continue repeating Mike Lee's name until people start equating him with "Tea Party Senate candidate."

Fozz
10-29-2010, 11:12 PM
Mike Lee. Utah.

Lee sucks on foreign policy.

AuH20
10-29-2010, 11:14 PM
Lee sucks on foreign policy.

He's not that bad considering he's running in Utah. His view on Afghanistan is tolerable as well.

malkusm
10-29-2010, 11:15 PM
Lee sucks on foreign policy.

Oh really?


Q: How would you counsel Pres obama on Iraq, Iran, and China

Mike Lee: The few powers that are actually given to the federal governments need to be exercised forcefully, carefully and without reservation…Foreign policy needs to be focused on protecting the homeland from attack, not on nation building. I'm concerned with reports that I am hearing from Afghanistan in particular that we may have 100 or fewer active militant Taliban in Afghanistan…If that is true, I ask the question: what on earth are we doing subjecting our brave men and women who need to be supported to that kind of danger, day in and day out, if they have as many thugs there as we have right here in Utah county?

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/04/utah-mike-lee-steps-in-it.html

malkusm
10-29-2010, 11:17 PM
Further Mike Lee reading: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2763371&postcount=8

Mike Lee is going to be one of the biggest non-interventionists in the Senate. In fact, if you judge candidates based on what they HAVE said (rather than what they HAVEN'T), Lee comes out ahead of Rand Paul on the non-interventionist scale.

parocks
10-30-2010, 12:47 AM
I didn't get the idea at all the Republicans were planning on passing legislation that was simliar in any way to things that the Democrats were going to do.

I would think that the Tea Parties would form a caucus, but I don't think they'd form their own party. Just keep winning in the primary and then the general. It should be easy enough. Olympia Snowe will not be the Republican nominee in Maine.


Less Pessimistic Prediction: The TEA Partiers form their own caucus — and eventually their own party — and throw sand into the gears of this insanity.

parocks
10-30-2010, 12:50 AM
Yes, I will continue repeating Mike Lee's name until people start equating him with "Tea Party Senate candidate."

There are 6 Tea Party brand Republican US Senate candidates.

Rand, Miller, Angle, Lee, Buck, O'Donnell.

There are others who might actually be closer to tea party principles than those 6, but those are the official 6.

j6p
10-30-2010, 06:00 AM
John McCain to campagin for Angle. http://dailypaul.com/node/147880

Stary Hickory
10-30-2010, 06:00 AM
I know the problem is the Senate. Always has been.

Number19
10-30-2010, 09:40 AM
This analysis is written from the perspective that the Democrats maintain control of the Senate. I agree with the second to last paragraph, which addresses the scenario of the Republicans gaining control - all bets are off.

TCE
10-30-2010, 10:23 PM
I could have sworn Tim Bridgewater was running as the Tea Party nominee, not Mike Lee, although I might be wrong, which is why I did not include him.

Toomey is terrible on foreign policy. http://www.toomeyforsenate.com/content/israel That's all I need to know about Toomey.


I had the great pleasure of visiting Israel in 1999 on an AIPAC-sponsored trip.

paulitics
10-30-2010, 10:38 PM
I could have sworn Tim Bridgewater was running as the Tea Party nominee, not Mike Lee, although I might be wrong, which is why I did not include him.

Toomey is terrible on foreign policy. http://www.toomeyforsenate.com/content/israel That's all I need to know about Toomey.

This guy is no diiferent that Rick Santorum, not just bad on foreign ploicy, but downright scary. I would sit out on this one if I lived in PA.

TNforPaul45
10-31-2010, 01:36 AM
The GOP establishment is exactly like the bog, what a good analogy... They demand conformity and will do anything to get it.

tpreitzel
10-31-2010, 04:21 AM
The constitutionalists within the "Tea Party" simply need to pressure the GOP establishment as appropriate. The pressure can be applied in various forms, i.e. identification of GOP senators obstructing the work of the "Tea Party" in those members' states, etc. We'll see how savvy and committed to principle these "Tea Party" senators really are. Hopefully, we can get Peter Schiff to join them soon enough.

Feeding the Abscess
10-31-2010, 04:59 AM
DeMint has never been co-opted so I'm currently not as pessimistic.

Angle, Lee, and Paul, and possibly Toomey and Buck (if he wins) will likely remain true to the Tea Party principles.

However, I think Rubio, Ron Johnson, and Rossi will sell out.

I know you're a DeMint fan, but the dude was never co-opted because he's always had a neocon foreign policy. I'd much rather have an non-interventionist, economic socialist than a social conservative MIC cheerleader. Dude sucks on civil liberties, too. He's for wiretapping, pro-PATRIOT Act, pro-War on Drugs, anti-Habeus Corpus. He's got some corporatist leanings, too, with his support for myriad Free Trade agreements and farm subsidies.

The Ron Paul Revolution has completely lost its way if guys like DeMint are championed.

awake
10-31-2010, 05:54 AM
I think most of the candidates will water themselves down in a bid to 'get something done'. This is the great co-opting influence - 'we need to go along to get along, we need to do something'. The mistake is in the idea that we need more laws and regulation to fix the previous laws and regulations destructive outcomes - the out of control production of law is a foundational problem. The masses want easy answers and quick solutions. They want to delegate to their office holders actions they themselves would not do, or want done to themselves.

There are many people voting to rob others they have never met.