The Shark Tank
Rubio 5

Senate Republicans Lick Their Wounds, Considers GOP Primary Involvement, Again

by Javier Manjarres

Here we go again- the Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate has decided that it will be getting involved in Republican primary races in order to try to field the ‘right’ candidates they feel are the most “electable” and likely to win their respective races-

Senate Republican leaders, frustrated by losing winnable seats, are preparing to play a more assertive role in primary races, in consultation with the Tea Party and other conservative activists.

The strategy reflects a change from the 2012 election in which they took a relatively hands-off approach to party primaries, according to The Wall Street Journal.-

Now, Senate leadership is likely to back a favored candidate in certain cases, as it had done in 2010 and before, bringing activists into the conversation earlier about potential nominees.

The Tea Party has been a confounding force and a source of energy for the Republican Party, It has lifted some to the party’s stars into power, among them Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. But it has also helped nominate candidates who weren’t strong enough to survive the general election.- Fox News

Let’s refresh your memories about the history between the Republican National Senatorial Committee (RNSC) and Marco Rubio for a minute.  Back in 2010, two of the GOP’s most influential Senators, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn openly endorsed then Florida Governor Charlie Crist in the Republican senate primary over Marco Rubio because they believed Crist was “the better and more electable” of the two candidates. 

Little did the realize they were getting behind a complete charlatan of a candidate who wound up endorsing Barack Obama for President in 2012 and is now looking to make a run for Governor as a Democrat, when they could have been getting behind a candidate who most likely represents the future of the Republican party, but I digress.

The evening before the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) openly endorsed Crist, Rubio placed a 11pm phone call to yours truly, saying  that Cornyn & Co. had told him in a private meeting earlier that day that the NRSC would be making an endorsement in the race immediately after Crist officially announced his Senate bid.

For weeks, the NRSC failed to even list Rubio as a Republican candidate on its website- the NRSC only featured Crist and his likely Democrat opponent, then Congressman Kendrick Meek.

In the subsequent months, I had an ongoing conversation with Senator Cornyn as to why the RNSC decided to back Crist instead of Rubio.  Cornyn stood his ground until Rubio began to surge in the polls- after Rubio began his surge, Cornyn began to change his rhetoric about the race, and when Rubio finally caught up to Crist in the polls, Cornyn stated, “we have two good candidates” and that we would have to see how things unfolded.

Only until Crist jumped from the GOP ship did Cornyn and other establishment Republicans begin chiding Crist and start supporting Rubio.

And we all know what happened in November 2010- conservative Republicans swept the country and Republicans were swept back into the majority in Congress.  Looking back , it barely seems believable that we were unable to maintain that momentum that many thought would yield more victories and ultimately take back the White House in 2012.

Perhaps the RNSC has learned its lesson from its shortsightedness in 2010, but unlike then, conservatives and by extension the country are now really up against the ropes- there simply is no margin for error.  With Democrats in firm control of the Senate, Obama could nominate whatever leftwing jurists he chooses should a vacancy open up on the Supreme Court in the next two years.  

We can no longer accept unprincipled Republican candidates who fail to provide a clear as day contrast from Democrats and their ruinous agenda.  The way forward is for Republicans to run senatorial candidates in the vein of Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim DeMint, and Marco Rubio- anything less is simply roadkill in the age of the most hyper-partisan progressive President who’s pushing the most destructive agenda in the history of the Republic.

If you liked the post, please share it.




About author

Javier Manjarres

As the managing editor of The Shark Tank, Javier was awarded the 2011 CPAC Blogger of the Year. Countless videos and articles from the Shark Tank have been featured on Fox News, The Hill, Wall Street Journal, and other national news publications. Javier has also appeared on Univision’s “Al Punto” and numerous radio shows, including being the weekly 92.5 Fox News' DayBreak with Drew Steele political contributor

Related Articles

21 Comments

  1. Lightweight November 19, 2012 at 7:29 am

    The Republican Party was the biggest mistake the Republican Party made.They did not hear the People in 2008 and hi-jacked the 2009 Tea Party Idea. The Republican Party experienced 2012 being 2008 Part 2.The only option the Republican Party has now is to move to the Left to attract liberals or merge with the Democrat Party.Talk Radio will continue to loose ratings.Mitt Romney owns Talk Radio and pretended their audience were stupid.

    • George Wayne Metz II November 20, 2012 at 3:32 pm

      Funny. I agreed completely with your first three sentences; then read the last three and discovered you’re an idiot. The Republican Party does need to move FAR to the right and re-brand ala The Tea Party, but even that (Taxed Enough Already) has no appeal to people like you who pay no tax. What do you care if we think we are taxed too heavily, and should not be supporting you. Further, “Talk Radio” is not losing ratings, and Mitt Romney is a non-entity at this point. To give you some idea, he was 7th on my list among the 9 ‘Republicans’ in the primary, ahead of only Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Still, you were right, the party is the problem.

    • Morstar150 November 21, 2012 at 10:48 am

      Are you kidding? “The only option that the Republican Party has is to move to the LEFT!!!” I would comment further but your lack of insight shows that you don’t understand the dynamics of the election and what really occurred. I suggest that you go back to watching CNN and listen to their liberal commentators tell us Republicans what “we” need to do.

  2. Rich November 19, 2012 at 7:53 am

    The people have spoken.
    They don’t want loonies in the Senate.
    The two candidate’s comments on rape were totally out of line with the thinking of mainstream Americans. The majority of Americans REJECT the right wing social agenda. When will you folks figure it out?
    What is needed now is an Eisenhower type of republican who respects American workers and who would work to keep us OUT of needless, costly wars.
    The only one who comes to mind is Colin Powell, a good and decent man.

    • BoGo November 19, 2012 at 4:55 pm

      Absolutely!

      An Eisenhower would:
      - Never have allowed the military to be wussified. It wouldn’t have been a choice between DADT. It would have been NO LGBT.

      - Never have championed infanticide.

      - give us a redux of Operation Wetback, only this time on steroids.

      I couldn’t agree with you more.

    • Jack Murphy November 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm

      Colin Powell is a Democrat you ninny he backed Obama. The point of the story is to tell the establishment to get the hell out of the way an let the folks decide who we want not who they want they have a track record of failures

      Charlie Crist
      Aker could have been elected but the rnc went religious
      The lady from Delaware could have made it if the rnc had shut the hell up

      same goes for the Nevada race shut up rnc once an for all…….

      • Rich November 21, 2012 at 6:03 am

        Ninny? Excuse me, sir, but Mr. Powell is a republican whether YOU choose to admit it or not.
        Didn’t he serve as Secretary of State in a republican administration? With Karl Rove calling the shots from the background, do you believe he would allow a Democrat to serve in the Bush regime?

        The republican party needs to get off its’ moral “high horse” and find sane candidates. As I said, a candidate like the good and wise Genereal/President Eisenhower would have wiped the floor with Mr. Obama. The problem is that the republicans have this urge to put up unelectable candidates that will adhere to an ugly agenda.

        When the republicans wake up and realize that the MAJORITY of Americans are FISCALLY conservative but SOCIALLY liberal we will get somewhere.

        Everyone has to answer to God for his or her lives, we don’t need to over legislate morality. We have no business peeking in to the bedrooms of others. Abortion, while an ugly and reprehensible thing should be allowed to women who need to terminate a pregnancy. That woman will have to answer to God for that, it is HER decision.

        Distractions from what matter most don’t get us anywhere!!
        Getting our fiscal house in order and getting Americans back to work is far more important. Restoring our manufacturing base should be a #1 priority. We won WW II because we could out produce everyone else. Can we say this now? NO!! These should be priorities RIGHT NOW!!

        • Morstar150 November 21, 2012 at 11:36 am

          Once again, the characterization of conservatives as “loonies” and “you folks” who you believe are out of line with the thinking of mainstream Americans shows a lack of understanding of the dynamics of this election.

          I will not suggest that the two candidates who made the unfortunate remarks when discussing abortion where the best candidates available. The real lesson is that the so called “Tea Party” candidates and supporters need a lesson in the realities of running a campaign. The first principal of the running a national or high level state campaign is that the media will lie, cheat or distort anything that you say to prevent you from being successful in your campaign.

          The issue of abortion is not something “we folks” have to figure out. The issue is based on two fundamental absolutes: One, that life begins at the time that the egg and the sperm form a new separate life with it’s own genetic code; the other, that a woman’s body is sanctified as if a temple and that no one may violate the sanctity of a woman’s body.

          Those absolutes are contradictory when it comes to abortion. So, we were left with the Roe v. Wade decision that tried to resolve the issue from a medical perspective. There are treatises of great volumes on whether Justice Blackmon accomplished what he set out to do but the point is this.

          You Rich, apparently believe that the pro-life position is an extreme position and you adopt the media’s unsubstantiated arguments to approve the pro-choice stance. The reality of the abortion debate beyond the biased lens of the media is that most people do not believe in abortion as a form of contraception, and most people, men and women, believe that there should be limits on abortion. Unfortunately, the reality of abortion in America is that the leftist woman’s organizations have tried to establish the idea that there is only one absolute and that any interference with a woman’s right to choice is a violation of the constitution. The result is that we now allow babies to be born alive and left unattended so they can die. We also allow the babies skulls to reach outside of the mother’s womb just enough to drill a hole in it and suck the brain matter out. If these were not human but animal procedures PETA would have the media on its side in a flash. Instead, you tell “we folks” that we are the extremists. I don’t kill babies, and I don’t support infanticide. If the respect for life makes me extreme then what does that make those who believe that parents should not know when their minor daughters are getting abortions or those who can’t make up their minds until the unborn child is beyond viability and can live outside the womb and then decide to kill that child? Who’s more extreme me or them?

          Don’t put me in the category of idiots who don’t know the real issue and don’t respect women enough to understand the second absolute that violating the sanctity of a woman’s body is never right unless she has invited one into the temple of her body.

          • Rich November 26, 2012 at 11:07 pm

            Excuse me, but a candidate who would insinuate that a child resulting from a rape is a “gift from God” has no business running for office.

            You need better candidates who are more mainstream and more in tune with what the majority of Americans want.
            Most Americans are worried more about being and keeping themselves employed, having affordable healthcare for themselves and their families and being able to retire comfortably.
            An intelligent, moderate candidate like the Great General/President Ike would win handily but you conservatives would deride him for not being “conservative enough”.
            That is your problem.

  3. DALE YOUNG November 19, 2012 at 8:51 am

    As you pointed out, RNC is a notoriously bad selector of candidates, usually relying upon next-in-line party hacks as we have done in presidential nominees in years past. This also denies to the local voters thier picks based on perception of character and ability. Crist had to be the most unqualified Jeb Bush could have possibly found. Cris Dorworth for Speakeer? Thank God for the voter’s perceptions. RNC will only perform as they have done in the past, as will the RNSC.

  4. Sandi Trusso November 19, 2012 at 10:43 am

    The Republican Party gave us John McCain, who wouldn’t have received any votes but those from his family, if it hadn’t have been for Sarah Palin. He lost!

    Then, although I supported Mitt Romney after Newt Gingrich was destroyed by the Party, they gave us Mitt Romney (whom they knew would start off immediately without the votes of many Evangelicals, but hey… what did they care?) His Mormonism didn’t bother me, I don’t follow their theology, but I agree with their values… but now was not the time to test Evangelicals.

    Here’s the bottom line: What made them think that the man (Romney) who lost to the loser (McCain) would now suddenly become a winner?

    Now… we hear that their blaming their loss on the Social issues, which they want to abandon. Fiscal and International policies vary from year to year within the Parties. The Social issues are the only constants! So if they succeed in abandoning them, there will be no reason to remain in the Republican Party. They might as well merge the Parties and then the only elections they’ll have to worry about will be against the Communist party, the Socialist Party, and the rest of the systems of Gov’t who want to take us over (which by the way are hard to tell the difference when you see the Platform of the Democrat Party).

    So I’m thinking that if we merge the Parties, there really won’t be a need for lawmakers, because the Republican Party Platform is the only one which actually cared about enforcing laws. If we don’t enforce laws, then why do we need government at all?

    All of the above has been written by a frustrated American, who is tired of having things forced upon “we the people” in opposition to that which we’ve already made our will known!

  5. mark November 19, 2012 at 10:58 am

    The Tea Party handed the election to the democrats – the republican party needs to stay away from issues which will alienate half the population such as women’s rights, gay rights and stick to issues such as tax reform, deficit reduction, foreign policy, job creation etc that appeals to all Americans. They need to attract the moderates – the far left will always be the far left and nothing is going to change that – middle America is how they will win back the Senate and the White House. Boehner needs to hold his ground in the House and Mitch – It is time for you to step down.

    • Jack Murphy November 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm

      Excuse me you are wrong sir…..The Tea Party had nothing zero to do with who was chosen you fools from the RNC establishment were the ones who chose and then pulled your support from them at the last minute……….

      The Tea Party stands for a. Fiscal sanity B. Leave me alone……C Leave my business and my family alone……………………..Thats what we stand for got it…….stop blameing your messes on us just look at your crappy leadership obama wins so Bayner drops his pants Mc Connel is used as a scape goat even thou he deserves it………..Time to clean out the RNC Leadership an vote in CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE enough with the life time hacks…….Congress is not supposed to be a life time job……

  6. Florida Dave November 19, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Two words as for Republicans picking our candidates, “Connie Mack”.

  7. Sandi Trusso November 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Anyone who thinks that staying away from the moral issues, is what will win elections for Republicans, is dreaming.

    Look at what Rick Santorum accomplished without a dime, and with NO support from the Party. Look what Newt Gingrich accomplished in the same way, and Mitt Romney campaigned for a year (and millions of dollars) before the official campaign, and never did achieve what we had hoped!

    What the Party needs to do is give us what we want. Conservative fiscal, int’l, moral policies. But they need to be able to articulate the facts behind them. It’s called “leadership”. You don’t put your finger in the air to see what to do. You lead, because you know what’s right!

    By the way the Party thought Reagan couldn’t win because of his conservative views on the moral issues. People want truth, and principles!

  8. Sandi Trusso November 19, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    As far as staying away from “Women’s issues”, if the Party had actually allowed women (who can articulate the issues, and who have successfully battled the opposition for years), to do the commercials, and take that public stand, we would’ve been successful.

    Furthermore, they allowed Obama and the Dems to continue the erroneous statement of how “they inherited the bad economy from Bush”. Why didn’t they hammer the truth home, that the bad economy only became a crisis inBush’s last 2 years… when the Democrats (including then Sens. Obama and Clinton) were in power. If they had done something… if they had a plan… why didn’t they get us out of this mess, or fix it???? Then when Obama became President, the same Democrat majority was in power for the first two years of his Presidency. Why didn’t they fix it then? BECAUSE THEY INHERITED THE ECONOMIC MESS FROM BUSH AND FROM THEMSELVES, AND THEY FURTHER TANKED IT WHEN THEY HAD A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT (NOT TO MENTION DOUBLING OUR DEBT)… So they didn’t have a plan to fix what they caused during Bush’s last 2 years… they didn’t have a plan to fix what they inherited from themselves and worsened in the next 2 years when Obama was President, and they don’t have a plan now!

    So now the Republicans are going to join forces with these doofus legislators to assure that we continue down the path of complete distruction! Good Grief… How much more of this stupidity do we need to put up with? Oh yeh… let’s blame the election loss on the moral issues…. Man, look at the truth!

    • Rich November 21, 2012 at 5:53 am

      Ms. Trusso, you fail to understand the economic downturn that occurred during the Bush regime. Blaming the Democrats shows your shortsightedness.
      The problem was Bush regime indifference to regulating financial markets/Wall Street.
      The sub-prime mortgage crisis was a major contributor.
      The growing disparity in income was also a major contributor as fewer homes became affordable to more and more Americans.
      In many ways the banks brought it on themselves as they encouraged Americans to treat their homes as “piggy banks” by constantly borrowing against their equity.
      Please don’t comment about what you don’t understand.

      • Morstar150 November 21, 2012 at 11:52 am

        You’re at it again. The sub-prime mortgage debacle has it’s major collaborators within the Democratic party and specifically with two highly influential Democrats, Barney Frank, and Christopher Dodd. Dodd had the sense to bow out before his likely criminal activity in receiving preferential treatment from government backed mortgage lenders would have caused his indictment. While Barney’s everyone should get a loan principal caused Fannie and Freddie to start the floodgates of unqualified borrowers.

        As for the predator lenders, how many of those Obama big financial institutions contributors have had to face the scrutiny of prosecution from the federal government? Answer: NONE! Add Jon Corzine into that mix! Instead, the very two Democrats responsible for the crisis wrote laws that have only served to destroy the small banks and make the largest financial institutions unstoppable and “TOO BIG TO FAIL!”

  9. George Blumel November 20, 2012 at 10:22 am

    he RNC backed Specter over Toomey as another example of many. When I backed Rick Scott early on over McCollum I was told sternly by party leadership the “he can’t win.” It is critically important that we grass-roots Repubs stick to our principles of limited government and family values and not make our choices of candidates based on “say or do anything to win” which characterizes the statist, morally bereft Dems. We do need quality candidates preferable from successful business and professionals who have something other than political experience to offer. And that will be more possible with term limits on congress –see http://www.termlimits.org to sign petition in support of the proposed constitutional amendment.

  10. David Butler November 20, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Sandi, I’m with you.

  11. Morstar150 November 22, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Now a comment on the Senate Republicans: We must get control of the Senate! It can happen if we work hard. It cannot happen if the Republican elites are in charge. We must continue to challenge the status quo.