Republicans In Disarray

Losing Candidates Increasingly Unwilling To Unite Behind GOP Nominees

For months, a civil war has raged between Tea Party activists and the GOP establishment for the heart of the Republican Party. While House Republicans have tried to co-opt the movement by creating a Tea Party Caucus, corporate Tea Party leaders like Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe scoff at the idea, declaring instead, “The movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover.” Meanwhile, despite public overtures, the Republican establishment has spent millions fending off Tea Party primary challenges.

It is no surprise, then, that in a multitude of races where Tea Party candidates have faced off against establishment Republicans in a GOP primary, the losing candidate is rejecting customary practice by refusing to endorse the winner. For a party that is supposed to have a banner year, immense disunity could spell trouble for the Republican Party. Here is a list of races this cycle — most of which pitted an establishment candidate against a Tea Party candidate — where the losing candidate has refused to officially endorse:

AZ-SEN: Sen. John McCain soundly trumped former Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the August 24 primary. Afterward, McCain never received a congratulatory phone call and Hayworth, who has not endorsed McCain, never received an invitation to a GOP unity event.

Read more at:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/31/rep ... -disunity/

This goes on both sides during the primary's, nothing new, interesting read!

Whatevergreen wrote: For months, a civil war has raged between Tea Party activists and the GOP establishment for the heart of the Republican Party. While House Republicans have tried to co-opt the movement by creating a Tea Party Caucus, corporate Tea Party leaders like Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe scoff at the idea, declaring instead, “The movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover.” Meanwhile, despite public overtures, the Republican establishment has spent millions fending off Tea Party primary challenges.

It is no surprise, then, that in a multitude of races where Tea Party candidates have faced off against establishment Republicans in a GOP primary, the losing candidate is rejecting customary practice by refusing to endorse the winner. For a party that is supposed to have a banner year, immense disunity could spell trouble for the Republican Party.

Exactly what I've been saying.

Interesting post. I think a big portion of the TEA Party despises RINOS for ignoring fiscal restraint when the GOP had the power. I know some Republicans that won't even consider Presidential front-runner Mitt Romney because he set up proto-Obama Care in Massachussets. This hard line tactic and refusal to endorse moderate Republicans will reduce the number of elections won. But in their eyes, a true fiscal conservative is worth 2 RINOS.
The Dems are having similar issues right now, Dean's DNC strategy was to win Congressional in Republican strongholds by running moderate Dems. Now these moderates are voting with the Republicans, and Pelosi is wishing she had more dependable Dems in the House.

Perhaps, we may EVENTUALLY get back to parties representing what the PEOPLE want? It may take some time and GOD willing - we still have a FREE country.

AV8OR wrote: Perhaps, we may EVENTUALLY get back to parties representing what the PEOPLE want? It may take some time and GOD willing - we still have a FREE country.

Problem with that idea is that people's wants change. And politicians misrepresent themselves. Voters for Obama wanted Gitmo closed and the US out of Iraq & Afghanistan. Now Gitmo is still open, 50,000 troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan is receiving troops from Iraq.

Now people want Obama and his minions out. Maybe we just need more direct democracy.

Political parties have come and gone over the history of the United States. Some people act as though the two major political parties are always going to be around. It's clear from the Tea Party movement that the Republican Party is in trouble.

I would love to see three viable parties in the United States and an end to the financial influence of lobbyists on our elected officials.

Wayne Harrison wrote: and an end to the financial influence of lobbyists on our elected officials.

You keep dreaming! And who would you consider a lobbyist? The AFL-CIO? PERA? AARP? Just groups organizing so that they are more likely to be heard. When one man talks to his congressman, he is easily ignored, if Martin Marietta is in his district, does the congressman listen to the company concerns? Is that lobbying?

SS109 wrote:

Wayne Harrison wrote: and an end to the financial influence of lobbyists on our elected officials.

You keep dreaming! And who would you consider a lobbyist? The AFL-CIO? PERA? AARP? Just groups organizing so that they are more likely to be heard. When one man talks to his congressman, he is easily ignored, if Martin Marietta is in his district, does the congressman listen to the company concerns? Is that lobbying?

It is lobbying, but if their voice is louder (more money) than us individuals, and their influence is greater than us individuals and decisions made for these lobbyists effect the our lives negatively.... as has been the case more and more... And so I agree with Wayne and I feel it needs to change.

I also would be in full support of election reform, take all of that money away from influencing elections to the detriment of the individuals.

Limit all contributions to say $100
Or eliminate them all together and create a pool that funds the campaigns, either way, return the voice to the individual citizen and away from the corporations........