Beltway Republicans planning to intervene more in GOP primaries

[Valin]

Hot Air:

Allahpundit

1/4/13

 

I remember when the NRSC took such intense heat for endorsing Charlie Crist in the primary over Rubio that then-chair John Cornyn vowed to stay out of primaries in the future. Three years and several Sharron Angles/Christine O’Donnells/Todd Akins later, the tune has changed among the broader Republican establishment. Question for readers: Is this worthy of automatic opposition on “damn these establishment RINOs” grounds or is it more of a wait-and-see thing? My sense from the comments here after Akin blew up over his rape remarks was that even a lot of grassroots conservatives wished he’d been torpedoed in the primary by a more electable candidate. Maybe that buys moderates a tiny bit of leeway among the base to push more “electable” candidates. At least until they go and back another Crist.

 

(Snip)

 

Better recruitment would sound wonderful if not for the fact that the establishment’s talent evaluators decided that this soulless careerist was a worthier candidate than Marco Rubio, a guy who’s already being touted as a potential Republican presidential nominee in 2016. Is there any situation where American Crossroads would endorse a more impressive, more conservative longshot over an ostensibly more “electable” centrist (especially a centrist incumbent)? My agita here isn’t over Steve LaTourette’s RINO Super PAC wading into a primary to try to torpedo a conservative, it’s the fear that it’ll wade in to torpedo impressive conservatives like Mike Lee or Ron Johnson or Pat Toomey or Ted Cruz or any of the other credible right-wing candidates who’ve been elected since 2010. Whom do you trust, among either the establishment or the grassroots, to consistently reliably discern “worthy” candidates from unworthy ones?

 

At the very least, this’ll be a fun experiment in seeing how far Super PAC money goes. In most cases, being opposed by Crossroads or the NRSC or whoever will be a badge of honor and mark of credibility for a tea-party upstart; will that mean doom for the establishment candidate on election day or can the ad blitz on his behalf buy the primary for Joe Beltway? And won’t this ultimately mean more right-wing dollars overall being spent on Republican primaries than on general elections? That’s safe in a red state, not so much in a purple one.

 

 

 

Well this should be fun. Top down vs. Bottom up, which is better? One thing is for sure, local Tea Party types will not be happy, and as the old saying goes...If Mama's Not Happy...Ain't Nobody Happy.

[Draggingtree]

Let’s Stop the Trend toward a National Presidential Primary

By: Morton C. Blackwell (Diary) | August 2nd, 2013 at 05:20 PM

 

Mr. Reince Priebus, Chairman

Republican National Committee

 

Dear Reince,

You received last month my notice, as required, that I shall propose a single amendment to The Rules of the Republican Party at the August 14-17 meeting of the RNC in Boston.

 

It’s a one-word amendment to Rule 16 ©(2) to change the word “may” back to the word “shall” – a small change of wording that would have a major effect on our Republican presidential nomination process and please a great many grassroots Republicans.

 

Because many new people have recently become Members of the national committee and because debate on Rules matters is customarily limited, I decided to discuss this matter in advance and in some detail in this letter to you, with copies to all RNC members.

 

My change would repeal one of the worst power grabs pushed through by Ben Ginsberg at the 2012 Republican National Convention Rules Committee in Tampa.

 

The amendment to the Rules I am proposing at our RNC meeting later this month in Boston would repeal that Ginsberg mistake and prevent winner-take-all primaries in March 2016. http://www.redstate.com/morton_c_blackwell/2013/08/02/lets-stop-the-trend-toward-a-national-presidential-primary/

[Draggingtree]

A New Electoral Paradigm

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | August 6th, 2013 at 02:08 PM

 

When Republicans lost the last presidential election to a weak president amidst an unprecedentedly lethargic economic recovery, Republicans of all stripes engaged in some soul-searching about what went wrong and what needs to change within the party.

 

The party establishment issued an “autopsy” report in which they searched everywhere for the culprit of electoral failure. They looked under the bed; they looked under the covers. They blamed our losses on conservatives and conservative ideas. They suggested we need to adopt Democrat positions on issues like marriage and amnesty

Yet, they failed to examine the one obvious culprit – the failed leadership within the party. They never even entertained the idea that, perhaps, it is the current crop of elected officials – people who stand for nothing and appeal to nobody –

 

Look down the roster of the 45 elected Republicans in the Senate. Putting ideology aside for a moment, how many of them represent a vibrant fresh voice for a new generation? You can count them all on one or two hands. This needs to change if we ever hope to grow our party.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/08/06/a-new-electoral-paradigm/