With Thad Cochran it’s Time to Think Long Term About Destroying the GOP

The tea party movement is often accused of not thinking long term. In many cases this is probably a true accusation because most tea partiers think an election is a goal in and of itself. But with the underhanded, anti-conservative, un-American tactics of the GOP establishment that gave Thad Cochran a primary win in Mississippi, it is obviously time for the tea party to start planning the destruction of the GOP establishment.

Thad Cochran and his patrons allied with former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour did not run an honorable campaign. In the waning days of their campaign it was their strategy to lie about conservatives, throw the race card and scare vulnerable black voters with tales that the KKK would swoop down upon them if Cochran’s tea party opponent won the primary, dole out cash to voters for their vote, and tell them Cochran would increase free food stamps for them if they crossed over and voted in the GOP primary.

In short Haley Barbour and the senile Cochran perpetrated every low down, Democrat-styled trick to destroy a true conservative candidate just so they could remain in power. These so-called Republicans purposefully disenfranchised tens of thousands of Republican voters.

As John Hawkins put it

The cost of that victory was the integrity, personal honor and reputations of prominent Cochran supporters like Haley Barbour, Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, John McCain and the NRSC, who were all undoubtedly congratulating each other on their sleazy victory last night, while today they’ll begin to try to distance themselves from the dishonorable conduct they winked at during the campaign. We may never know which of them was ultimately responsible for smearing Tea Partiers as racists or centering the run-off campaign around getting Democrats to vote in a GOP campaign. But what we do know is that if Haley Barbour, Karl Rove, John McCain or the NRSC found it unacceptable, they could have put their foot down and demanded the campaign put a stop to it. None of them did because they were just fine with using those sort of tactics to defeat grassroots conservatives.

So, it is now 100 percent clear that the Republican Party is merely the “outer defenses” for the Democrat Party, not an opposing party that wants to see the Democrats put out of power.

These days Mississippi is a very Republican friendly state, so we have an opportunity to really destroy a segment of the GOP establishment and replace them with actual conservatives.

So, I think our first step in this long-term goal is to have every conservative in Miss. vote for Cochran’s Democrat opponent and make sure that Cochran is defeated in his re-election bid.

Getting rid of Cochran and his benefactor Barbour is more important to the conservative cause than re-electing Cochran to avoid a few years with a Democrat in office from Miss. (remember, we are talking long term, here).

Next, spend that time building the movement to counter Barbour and his race baiting, big government machine by electing more conservatives to the state legislature and any other federal office that comes to hand.

Miss. must begin electing actual Republicans not wool-wearing, Miss. Democrats masquerading as Republicans.

Don’t give me all this guff about *BUT WINNING* because if we are winning with Arlen Spector-Mark Kirk-Thad Cochran-John Boehner Democrats dressed as Republicans then we aren’t winning anything at all.

Yes, I am saying we need to either turn the GOP into the next Whig Party, or take it over by destroying the current big government powermongers.

Excuse my Mark Levin, but it is becoming crystal clear that the GOP is the more immediate enemy to the conservatism than are the Democrats.

We can actually win a battle with the establishment GOPers in Miss. so that we can go on to the war with the Dems. You can’t breach the city walls without first taking out the outer defenses and the purpose of the GOP establishment is obviously to be the outer defenses for the Democrat establishment. The GOP acts as the protectors of socialist, left-wing Democrat policies.

Yes, this means that there may be an intervening time when we are out of power. Yes, it may even mean keeping the insane, anti-American Harry Reid in power over the Senate for a bit longer. But all that would be temporary if we could rebuild the GOP with conservatism at its core instead of left-wing, big government policies driving the bus.

Yes, this is a long-term plan and it may mean some pain in the short term. But the GOP has proven to be an enemy. It must be destroyed from within and rebuilt. And if we can’t start this nation-wide take over of the GOP in Mississippi (or other current GOP strongholds) we won’t ever be able to do it.

Why won’t we ever be able to? Because the GOP establishment plays hardball, they play for exclusive power, power they will never share with conservatives, and they’d rather lose and let a Democrat win than side with conservatives. Sadly, they only play hardball when trying to defeat conservatives. As a rule, the GOP suddenly turns spineless when it comes to battling Democrats.

Republicans consider traditional Americans an enemy that needs to be vanquished. It’s time we returned the sentiment.

Now is the time to completely sideline the GOP establishment. If we don’t start now, we may as well understand that the USA is over, finished, a Euroized mess that will never again be the power it was. We will forever cease being the light unto the world–a goal that Obama and the Democrats dearly wish to achieve.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
SCOTUS Unanimously Slaps Down Obama on Recess Appointments
  • Hank_M

    I hate to say it, but I agree.
    As to: “Because the GOP establishment plays hardball….”
    Only against itself. I never see the GOP playing hardball against the dem/progs.

    • warnertoddhuston

      that was the context in which I meant it, but I probably should have made it more clear. So, I will go make that point. Thanks and kudos to you for making me be more specific on that.

    • as do I. I’ve stopped being a Republican, while remaining a republican (there is a difference: see the top quote on my blog, The Vail Spot). I am moderately conservative, but the older I get, the more Libertarian I become. I would like to see the size and scope of government rolled back by 70% or more…

  • Michael Lang

    Yawn. Wingnuts unite!

    • warnertoddhuston

      did you think “yawn” up by yourself? Why you must be duh smartest dude in da world.

      • stan25

        I thought Barry was.

    • Moonbats will bark…

    • Brett Buck

      See, this is the kind of insightful, thought-provoking, and well-formed idea that I expect from a leftist. Thank you, Mr. Lang, for elevating the level of discussion. You are like a breath of fresh air!

  • Commander_Chico

    What would be the platform of your wonderful new party?

    Oh, can’t figure that out, can you?

    • warnertoddhuston

      What a stupid comment. The platform would be the CURRENT GOP platform. Why? Because there isn’t much wrong with it except for the fact that no Republican bothers to uphold it.

      • What did you expect from our soi disant “veteran cognoscenti” and undisputed crapmeister?

      • Horatio Lopez

        Many African American voters felt safe with Thad Cochran’s statesmanship and reliable voting record. – Better the Devil you know, than the one you don’t.

      • Commander_Chico

        I think that platform is OK, but it’s so vague it does not mean much.

        Don’t see how Thad Cochran was in conflict with it.

    • mikegiles

      How about small government, less regulation, lower taxes and decreased spending. You know – the things the GOP is supposed to stand for. BTW, why should a leftard like you care if the GOP splinters? Shouldn’t you before that?

  • JWH

    I don’t like the Tea Party. Never have. Never will. But I would very much like to see something like this happen. There seems to be a lot of tension in the GOP right now between the Tea wing and the establishment wing, with the establishment doing its best to placate the Tea Party without giving it anything it actually wants. And the establishment is afraid to actually take action because it doesn’t want to offend the Tea wing. I very much want the Republican Party to resolve its internal tensions one way or the other.

    • jim_m

      SO how much of your objection is based on the lying images created by the MSM of the TEA Party being a bunch of racists demanding prayer in school and an end to abortion, and how much is in your objection to a solvent, more limited government that is responsive to the people?

      • JWH

        Not really relevant here. I just want the Republican Party to get over its political schizophrenia.

        • Scalia

          One the one hand, it’s political schizophrenia; on the other hand, it’s the absence of a big tent. Whether for good or bad, the GOP is far more inclusive than the Democratic Party. It appears from your comment that you’d prefer the GOP to make up its mind and be just as intolerant as the Democrats, no?

          I’m not trying to be flippant; I’m just trying to understand your comment.

          • JWH

            I suppose there’s an issue of perspectives here. From the outside, it looks like the Republican Party isn’t a big tent so much as a large family continually quarreling with itself. Also, from where I sit, the split doesn’t look like conservatives vs. moderates, but ideologues vs. pragmatists. And neither the ideologues nor the pragmatists like or even respect each other.

            As a left-leaning pragmatist myself, I’d prefer the GOP pragmatists come out on top. But I would settle for the Republican Party finally getting over its stasis.

          • alanstorm

            “left-leaning pragmatist”

            Self-canceling phrase.

          • Scalia

            JWH, the “perspective” of most political observers is that the GOP has had prominent moderate members in its recent history (e.g. McCain & Snowe). That the more conservative GOPers do not like the prominence of such moderates is to be expected (just as the prominence of conservatism anywhere irks liberals); however, the ultimate responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the voters. Mixed voting produces a mixed party.

            If the “pragmatists” you refer to prevail, they will be just as intolerant as the Democrats are. Your comments make that appear to be a good thing; however, if intolerance of other views is the maxim, then conservatives cannot be blamed for following suit.

            You do not appear to be an intolerant person. That’s why I don’t understand your comments. The greater political diversity in the GOP guarantees political tension. The only way that can be settled in the American context is through the ballot. The more successful one faction is, the more of its political objectives it will seek to realize. And if another faction attempts to frustrate those objectives, there’s going to be a conflict.

            At bottom, a party cannot, in itself, obviate the tension. That’s up to the voters. Regrettably, I see greater intolerance among voters. As a left-leaning citizen, I know you will disagree with me–and I’m not proposing to settle that disagreement now–but I see far more intolerance coming from liberals than from conservatives. And if the trend continues, everything will be “settled” by the heavy hand of a government created by an intolerant socialism. To paraphrase Bork, do we prefer an authoritarian regime with which we agree to a democracy with which we do not? I think you would answer “no” to such a question. Hence, we had all better work against such a regime.

  • Alan Shea

    It would seem to me that a better strategy would to organize a write-in campaign for McDaniels in November. It would probably spit the vote and hand the election to the Dems anyway, but it won’t allow the Dems to claim a mandate for anything and will send a message that the GOP can’t miss. They will probably still ignore it, but they won’t miss it.

    • warnertoddhuston

      I think your way that no real statement will be made. If conservatives make a play to purposefully torpedo Cochran and give his seat to the Dems it was be a far bigger blow to the establishment, making them look both weak and chastised.

      • jim_m

        How is a write in campaign for McDaniels not a way to torpedo Cochran?

  • mikegiles

    The GOP incumbents, will always support incumbents over challengers. After all, we should understand that over time they have developed deep personal relationships with their fellow Republican Senators. Those relationships mean far more to them than party loyalty.

  • Brucehenry

    Thad Cochran has an 88% rating from the American Conservative Union. By all means, wingnuts, throw him overboard and support the Democrat. I think it’s an awesome idea, you should totally go for it.

    • jim_m

      I think the main objection at this point is the dishonest campaign that he ran, in particular the flyer that he sent out in the final weeks that was a complete falsehood.

      Conservatives have standards, I know that such a concept is foreign to you so I do not expect you to understand that.

      • Brucehenry

        What was the exact wording of this awful flyer?

      • Brucehenry
        • jim_m

          Yes, that is the flyer, it was apparently produced by democrats who wanted Cochran to win and it is categorically false that the TEA Party is for voter suppression. The left is constantly going on about vote suppression but the only cases I have heard of actual voter suppression have come from the left.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so. The Tea Party majority in the NC legislature is pretty big on it. Not too familiar with other states.

          • jim_m

            Big on voter suppression? I doubt it. Big on voter ID and making sure that only registered voters vote so people aren’t disenfranchised by corrupt leftists trying to game the system? Big on cleaning up dead voters and non-residents from the rolls so people can’t commit fraud? Yeah.

            Voter ID has never been shown to result in voter suppression. Voter ID has actually resulted in increased turnout in some areas. What you object to is that it makes it harder to cheat.

            [edit] The reality is that there is no legitimate excuse to stand against cleaning up the voter rolls and there is no excuse for opposing voter ID other than to encourage and to enable cheating. Anyone who stands against these things is in favor of vote fraud and in favor of disenfranchising the people of the United States. There is no other reason. Anyone opposing these measures should be considered guilty of endorsing these illegal activities. In fact your past denial that these activities occur tells me that you want to enable them. If you really thought that vote fraud did not occur you would not object to what is in your mind a pointless measure that would have no detrimental effect. Your opposition to them testifies to your wanting to create the possibility of fraud.

          • Brucehenry

            I personally don’t have much objection to the photo ID thingie. But a lot of these laws calling themselves “Voter ID Laws” contain other measures which will suppress or at the very least decrease voter turnout.

            Such as ending early voting on Sundays, messing with the campus vote, decreasing early voting days and hours, etc. All measures aimed squarely, and often openly, at lessening what has been up to now perfectly legal Democratic turnout.

          • jim_m

            Explain how ending early voting is decreasing turnout when voting was supposed to be done on a single day, a Tuesday, and not done in advance except for absentee ballots?

            This is just another piece of bullshit being used as an excuse to oppose clean voting while pretending to be for it. It is just a pose being used as cover to continue cheating.

          • jim_m

            Seems to me that any extra voting time period is still an increase. How hard could it be to get your lazy ass into the poling place to vote? This is a bullshit excuse.

            Or are dem voters so fucking lazy and stupid that they can’t manage to get it done? Seems to me that this is just more bullshit from you and just a pose to enable cheating while claiming to be against that cheating you claim never happens

          • Brucehenry

            It was “supposed” to be done in accordance with whatever rules the state decided. There are jurisdictions where elections are held on days other than Tuesday, and there is nothing sacred about Tuesday.

            Early voting was done in an attempt to have more voters participate in the electoral process. It was a bipartisan idea, but when in practice it became obvious that more Democrats were availing themselves of it than Republicans were, it suddenly was BAD BAD BAD.

            Wealthier people have always availed themselves of absentee voting more than poor people have. And middle-class, six-figure types like yourself never see a problem with getting off work on time to vote on Tuesday because you’re not poor, with unreliable transportation and/or an inflexible work schedule and/or poor or no child care options and/or a variety of other hindrances that richer folk aren’t faced with.

            Well-off folk have options other than Tuesday voting but you object to lesser mortals having options, I see.

            Not allowing college ID is a problem too btw.

          • Retired military

            Speaking of state laws concering election see my post above ref dems who voted for Cochran in the run off but had voted previously in the democrat primary.

          • jim_m

            No. College ID are not proof of residence. You need to have a proof of actual residence in the state. A college ID is not the same as a state issued ID. If you are going to allow any photo ID then the ID law has no really purpose since it is easily circumvented. I am not surprised that you would be in favor of all sorts of outs to eviscerate the law and make it easy to cheat.

          • Brucehenry

            The rules can be written so that college IDs could show where a voter legally resides. This is not an insurmountable problem.

          • jim_m

            Again, when you allow ANY photo ID to be used to gut the law. I am not aware of any university ID that has the same kinds of forgery protections that are used on state issued IDs.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not an expert on ID but I bet it could rather easily be done, don’t you?

          • jim_m

            The point is that you have a small and easily identified number of valid ID forms that all election judges are going to be able to recognize. By opening this up to any photo ID regardless of the design you make it impossible for election judges to be able to identify legitimate IDs. Once you do that then any law requiring positive ID is rendered useless. But then that is you aim in all this isn’t it?

          • Brucehenry

            Who said anything about “any photo ID regardless of the design”?

            When writing Voter ID laws a standard could be set that colleges would have to abide by when issuing IDs. Easy peasy.

          • jim_m

            Again, the point is to have a restricted set of ID’s so you know who is issuing them. If all you have is a standard then anyone can print out IDs to that standard and it is easy to forge IDs to facilitate fraud.

            You need to have an ID that positively identifies the holder and certifies that the person in the picture is the actual person. Just printing an ID to a standard does not do that. Allowing anyone to print an ID does not guarantee the identity of the holder.

            What you want is an ID law that would allow any fake ID to be presented and accepted as valid. What you are suggesting is a fake program where there is no ballot security but there is lots of ballot security theater, while still allowing ballot fraud.

          • Brucehenry

            Colleges and universities are not ‘anyone.” There could easily be requirements enforced that they be as sure of who they’re issuing ID to as DMV is.

          • jim_m

            I suspect that where you live there must be approximately zero colleges and universities. However, if you go somewhere where there is an educated society you will find that there are a lot of colleges and universities.

            If you go to Boston you will find literally scores of schools. Even in a small rural town like Peoria, IL (pop 119k) you will find 9 colleges and Universities. And that is just the ones in town. You go down the road 30 minutes and you will find at least another 9 in Bloomington-Normal.

            The ability to ensure that these ID are current, restricted and not being forged, etc., simply does not exist. You would have to issue a new ID every year to every student. That would be quite costly. I went through college with just one ID card.

            But again, the purpose is to have a small set of IDs. Opening up the possible IDs to any college/university means making it impossible for an election judge to know whether or not the ID is legit.

            So what you propose is a way to make IDs so easy to fake that the requirement for IDs is meaningless. You want to facilitate fraud. You have no legitimate reason to open up ID requirements like this. It is only and can only be to facilitate election fraud.

          • Commander_Chico

            Anywhere you see long lines for voting (+1 hour wait) there’s shenanigans. That should be a constitutional violation.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            I wonder how this happens. At my polling place we have 15 to 20 little booths where we mark our ballot with an ink pen, then we take the ballot to a machine that reads it to be sure it is valid before it goes into the ballot box. There is never any line, and we have pretty good voter turn-outs.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            OK, you’re point about poorer people losing wages to vote on Tuesday is legit. So have voting also available on the Saturday before the Tuesday election. There should not be a multitude of days on which you can vote. It just makes fraud easier.

          • Brucehenry

            How so?

          • Ken in Camarillo

            The longer the ballots are out ready for use before being returned to the county election officials, the longer the window for vote fraud.

            “Chain of custody” is much shorter and tighter if ballots leave the county center with a chaperon to the voting location, handed off to the polling workers for voting hours, then returned (the same day) to the county center with a chaperon.”

            If ballots are out at voting location over multiple days, it is likely that there will be times when they are supposed to be secure, but with no chaperon present. This leaves more opportunity for fraud.

          • Brucehenry


            And do you have any proof or evidence, or even any allegations, that this chain of custody issue has been a problem is early-voting states so far?

          • jim_m

            His point was not that fraud has been detected or prosecuted but that it is easier. Are you contesting that it is not easier by creating a longer timeframe in which to commit it?

          • Brucehenry

            And I guess it would be harder to commit fraud if voting hours were 9-5, too, but that doesn’t mean we should cut the hours back to prevent a fraud that may never happen, and that there is little proof ever DOES happen.

          • jim_m

            Not true. There have been multiple instances where more votes have been cast than registered voters. But because you cannot tell which are the valid votes and which are the fake you have to accept them all.

            You are once again arguing that if no one has been convicted then it never happened.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            It’s called prudence; not exposing the system to unnecessary risk. I haven’t had problems on my street with home burglaries or car thefts, but I lock my house and car whenever they are unattended. Can your mind comprehend such a concept?

          • Brucehenry

            The thing is, Ken, it WAS deemed necessary, in the jurisdictions in which early voting is the rule, to expand voting days and hours in order to allow more voters to conveniently cast their ballots. Again, this was a bipartisan idea that had been discussed for years and years.

            There is little to no evidence that any fraud is being committed, so it’s funny that this “prudence” so suddenly becomes necessary only AFTER it becomes obvious that Democrats are availing themselves of the expanded times more than Republicans are.

            And not funny haha, funny suspicious.

          • jim_m

            No it is not legit, The polls are open from 6AM to 7PM (or at least they are here). Most people do not do 13 hour shifts. Those who do have work that conflicts have always been able to cast an absentee ballot. And, of course, the law requires employers to give employees the ability to leave work and cast a ballot.

            His excuse is yet one more bogus attempt to find a way to preserve the ability to commit vote fraud, something which he claims never happens.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, the state decides when, for how many days and hours, etc, that voting can take place. The idea of early voting and extended days and hours was a bipartisan one, the point being to make it easier and more convenient for EVERYONE to vote, thus giving more folks from all walks of life a stake in democracy.

            I remember reading about this idea way back in the 70s in Reader’s Fucking Digest. It was, as I said, endorsed by many people of both parties as a way to expand the number of people who exercized their voices and claimed their rightful stake in running the country.

            Again, it was only when it became obvious that more Democrats than Republicans were showing up for early voting that it suddenly became suspect to paranoia mongers. What evidence is there that more fraud is occurring on early voting days than on the traditional Tuesday voting?

          • jim_m

            Or maybe it is a simple matter of practicality and the expense of opening up and staffing polling places for extended periods of time.

            One does not have to prove that fraud was going on to understand that the longer polling places are open the more opportunities there are for fraud. Similarly, the more different IDs that are available the more opportunities for fraud.

            As far as I am concerned if it is that fucking hard for you to go out and vote then you probably don’t care enough to be voting. I would agree that holding elections over the weekend would make a far more intelligent choice. More people can be more easily available to vote on the weekend. Voting on a Tuesday never made much sense to me.

          • Brucehenry

            Also, the longer polling places are open the more opportunities there are for, you know, voting.

            In NC no one is claiming that early voting is being shrunk due to cost. It’s pretty nakedly a move to make sure there are fewer Democratic votes cast, they’re not being very sneaky about it.


            And before you point out this was on a comedy show, be aware that this guy didn’t know that; he thought it was a legitimate interview. And besides, Republicans more honest than cynical have admitted as much all over the country:


          • jim_m

            If people want to vote they already have that opportunity. There is no real value in higher percentages of getting the vote out. People motivated to vote are less likely to be uninformed voters. What extended voting does is provide an opportunity for people who don’t know jack to get off their lazy asses and cast stupid votes.

            The notion that this gets rid of dem votes is merely an admission that dem voters are ignorant, easily lead people who don’t know what the fuck they are doing and don’t really give a damn about how this country is run because otherwise they would get off their asses and vote. This claim that reducing the open voting period by a day is going to disenfranchise anyone is pure bullshit and you know it..

          • Brucehenry

            In NC it was shrunk by 3 Sundays and Saturday voting was shortened. Plus the number of locations were greatly reduced.

            You are engaging in specious logic. You declare as if it were uncontested fact that there is no value in early voting — I can tell you just as emphatically that there is. Your pejoratives about early voters are just insults off the top of your head, not facts supported by data. Then you declare that your bigoted and uninformed statements are the very proof of your own bigoted conclusions!

            Nerves of steel, Jim, nerves of steel.

        • Retired military

          This was a run off election. It is my understanding that at least some of the dems who voted for Cochran in the run off voted in the democrat primary which was held prior to the run off. it is also my understanding that this is illegal in Miss.

          • Brucehenry

            Well it is my understanding that “questions were swirling” about whether this would happen, not that there was any evidence it actually DID happen.

            Apparently in MS it is illegal to vote in one party’s runoff if you have voted in the other party’s primary. But I have seen no proof that this occurred, only “concern” among McDaniels’s partisans that it MIGHT occur.

          • Retired military

            It is estimated that Cochran had about 25k-35k cross over dems voting for him. Now how many of those do you think voted in the dem primary. If I had to bet I would say that probably a good many did.
            Granted proof is needed but simply comparing voter rolls of folks who voted in the dem primary and then turned around and voted in the republican run off would provide the proof.

            Of course then the argument would be that you cant prove who voted for whom.

            However write ins could be checked against the rolls and that may help either resolve the issue or muddy it up even more. If enough writes ins went for McDaniel and the ones for Cochran got booted for voting in both primaries than McDaniels who have the greater votes. However then Cochran would be using the above argument to fight against the decision.

            The only solution being (if there is a large enough number proven) would be to hold the run off election again and this time check for folks who voted in the dem primary and are now trying to vote in the republican run off. Good luck with that flying past the dems and republican establishment.

            I don’t think it is going to matter much in Nov either way. With all the illegal aliens voting for the dems I don’t have much hope. And yes I believe Obama will either pardon them out right if nothing else. And with no voter Id laws in a lot of states the alinsky rule of overrwhelming the system will come into play.

          • Brucehenry

            “It is estimated” by whom?

          • Retired military
        • Commander_Chico

          Yeah, it’s actually better than Democrats voting for the nutball to give their own candidate a better chance.

          • Retired military

            You idiot. This was a republican run off. The primaries had already been run. Democrats crossed over to vote in a republican run off election and if they had voted in the previous dem primary that is against Miss law.
            Of course breaking the law doesn’t bother you as long as it helps your cause.

        • alanstorm

          Then tell me what is so wrong about Republicans voting in an open primary
          for a less-crazy-than-the-other-lunatic Democrat when it’s a sure bet
          SOME Democrat will win the general.

          Still like the idea?

          • Brucehenry

            Umm yeah I do. If primaries are open, candidates may eschew being more extreme than the other guy in their party and attempt to appeal to more voters.

            You should like it, too. This may prevent a moderate Republican from pandering so hard to the nuts in the primary that he makes himself unelectable in the general. That’s what happened to both McCain and Romney in my opinion.

          • Retired military


            “That’s what happened to both McCain and Romney in my opinion.

            McCain only got the votes he did was Palin who was a lot farther right than him. McCain is so far left I am betting that Hillary picks him as a running mate.
            Romney lost because the republican base stayed home due to the fact that Romney is a RINO.
            In short, I don’t know of any conservative who would say that McCain or Romney went “far right” as you aledge.

          • Brucehenry

            That McCain only got the votes he did because of Palin is your opinion, unsupported by any data that I know of. It’s more likely that his choice of such an obviously unqualified, stupid person to be a 72-year-old man’s heartbeat away from the nuke codes cost him votes.

            If Republicans stayed home and didn’t vote for RINO Romney they have only themselves to blame for what they dislike about Obama and should STFU. But what ACTUALLY happened is that, because of the long GOP primary process, Romney had to out-nut the nuts like Bachmann and Santorum, so Dems found it easier to portray him in the general election as extreme. For instance he became more anti-immigration than thou in Iowa, thus costing himself millions of potential Latino votes that Bush 43 was able to garner.

          • Ken in Camarillo

            The difference between a war story, a Brucehenry comment, and a fairy tale:
            The fairy tale starts “Once upon a time..”
            The war story starts “This ain’t no bull..”
            The Brucehenry comment starts “You know I’m full of..”

    • warnertoddhuston

      No conservatives use the ACU ratings anymore. They are unreliable. Use the Heritage rankings, instead.Cochran is at 57 percent there. THAT is closer to reality.

  • superdestroyer

    Would all conservatives be better off if the Republican Party went away and all of the former Republican Party voters started voting in the Democratic Primary. At least then, conservatives would have some influence on policy and governance instead of the current situation of begging the politicians in an irrelevant political party to try to do what they campaign on doing.

    • jim_m

      Idiot. There are 30 governor’s mansions occupied by GOP governors. The majority of state legislatures are controlled by the GOP. You think that the GOP has no input on governance? You’re an ass.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Let’s assume for a moment there are three parties. The democrats, the GOP and the tea party. The GOP and tea party are allied. They don’t always agree. On several issues I believe the tea party position is better than the GOP position.
    I can not imagine a position on any issue that the democrats support that would be preferable to the GOP position. So while it may be frustrating to be allied, rather than dominant, it is also the reality that the tea party is very far away from having a majority, without the GOP, in the house or senate.
    So your solution is nothing more than Obama’s childish peevishness in not getting your way. Is the Mississippi senate seat so far out of reach that it can’t be imagined coming into the hands of the tea party in 6 years? If there is a democrat in the seat, I can imagine the democrat holding the seat in 6 years. I can’t see Cochran running again in 6 years.
    Further, it is a close run thing, but this election cycle is one that could reverse the disastrous turn we took 8 years ago in putting a majority of the senate into democratic hands. 2016 slightly favors the democrats for the senate. So if we followed your advice, we very well might fail to capture the senate for the GOP/tea party alliance. Again, what issue would you rather see the democrats prevail upon vs the GOP.
    The long term interest for the tea party is not to stamp our feet at the dastardly GOP grabbing a senate seat that we almost could have/should have gotten, turning over the game board rather than biding our time and risking what should be an easy win in 6 years by putting a democrat in as incumbent now.
    Petulance is not a long term strategy.

    • Ken in Camarillo

      Even though the tactics used to give Cochran the victory disgust me and make me as angry as I’ve ever recently been politically, yetanotherjohn makes a lot of sense.

  • Par4Course

    If Thad Cochran wins, he may well be the 51st vote that assures the demise of Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. He may be a poster child for term limits but he votes with conservatives almost all the time. Sabotaging the GOP will assure the Dems of continued control of at least 2 out of 3 of the branches of government. Not everyone on the right side of the aisle is going to be a hero.

    • Retired military

      With Obama they only need one. He knows that they wont impeach so he has nothing but SCOTUS overruling his decisions. Until that happens though his crap is “Law of the land”.

  • Mjolnir

    I think the most important thing we should take from this election is that we need to end open primaries. It disgusts me that I should register for a party and that someone who doesn’t actually care enough to do so should be able to vote for who my candidate will be. This is absurdity. End this stupid practice. Let registered party voters vote for their candidate, and let everybody else pound sand.

    • JWH

      Do you have any thoughts on California’s so-called “jungle” primary system?

      • Ken in Camarillo

        It’s ridiculous. I suppose it is aiming to give 3rd party candidates a better chance.

        The best way to do this would be the “instant run-off voting” (IRV) system. You vote for your first, second, and third preference for the office. The computer counts the votes, eliminates the candidate with the least votes, then repeats. The computer uses your highest preference candidate who hasn’t been eliminated as your vote. If any candidate ends up with more than 1/2 the votes, they win and there is no further election. If not, another election with the top three candidates, where you vote for your first and second preference.

        In this system, there are NO PRIMARIES. Each election is to immediately select the final winner. Thus, no chance to game the system with crossover voting. It means a longer ballot to allow the extra votes for preference, but could eliminate an entire election date, since there are no primaries.

        The election for President would still have a primary in each state to choose each party’s candidate (could use IRV system), then in the general election each state would choose the candidate who will receive that state’s votes in the electoral college. This general election could also use IRV if there were more than 2 parties running a candidate for President.

  • mikegiles

    It won’t be the first time a political party has been destroyed by it’s internal contradictions. The Democraptic party may not have that disadvantage, all they have ever been interested in, was power.