By Javier Manjarres
The Democrat party and the Mainstream Media (MSM) are continuing to push the notion that ‘The Tea Party’ is to blame for the recent losses the Republican party sustained in the 2012 general election cycle.
An article published on the CNN.com authored by Julian Zelizer, a Princeton University professor who’s also penned a book about former President Jimmy Carter, asserts that the Republican party needs to distance itself from the ‘Tea Party’ if intends to remain viable in future elections.
Zelizer states that “Besides the Senate, the electoral costs were also evident in the Republican presidential primaries, when Mitt Romney felt the need to make the kinds of “severely conservative” statements that cost him enormously in the election.”
What the professor fails to understand is that the Republican establishment played a strong role in pushing Mitt Romney’s candidacy from the very beginning, likely believing that most of the other Republican presidential candidates were either “not safe” or too closely associated with the conservative grassroots/’Tea Party movement.
Remember that during the 2012 GOP presidential primary, all of the “other” candidates- Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum took leads in the primary polls because the sentiment at the time was that it had to be “anyone but Romney.”
Romney and the GOP- who many are saying struck a deal after 2008- waited it out because ‘his turn’ would come. Lets’ not forget that Romney stepped aside during the 2008 Republican primary for the Republican establishment’s preferred candidate, Senator John McCain- we all know how that turned out.
Here’s an excerpt from the Zelizer’s article-
The demand to remain ideologically pure has consistently pushed Republican leaders to move to avoid saying yes to almost anything, preventing House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from cutting deals.
The inaction of the GOP and the ideologically charged rhetoric from its members have played directly into arguments by scholars such as Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein that the GOP is moving far to the right and is responsible for the dysfunctional state of politics in Washington.
Finally, the tea party is making it increasingly difficult for Republicans to win over hugely important voting blocs that can play a major role in 2016 and 2020.
In 2012, the Republicans paid dearly among Latino voters for the rising power of hard-line anti-immigration advocates. The tea party helped to drown out voices such as those of Bush who believed the party needed to broaden its appeal and reach out to new constituencies, not shrink its electoral map. They have also turned off many younger millennial voters, another key constituency finding less to like about the Republican Party.-CNN
House Speaker John Boehner is busy compromising with Obama on the looming ‘Fiscal Cliff’ dilemma and is now willing to consider a tax hike for Americans that make over one million dollars a year, something that grassroots activists oppose.
Plan A was shot down, and now Boehner’s Plan B is not going to be considered. What is the author’s excuse now that President Obama is pushing back on Speaker Boehner’s ‘Fiscal Cliff’ proposals? Who’s the one taking a “hard line” and not negotiating in good faith here?
The most preposterous accusation that the author makes in his post is that because of the Tea Party, Republicans lost the coveted Hispanic voting bloc.
The Tea Party came into existence in 2009- who’s to blame for the Republican party’s dismal support in 2008 from Hispanics? Back in 2008, 72% of the Hispanics that voted in the general election voted for Barack Obama, while only 25% voted for Republican John McCain. (Latino Decisions)
What the Democrats and the media do not want to harp on- and neither do the Republicans, for that matter- is that turn out, or the lack of turnout for Republicans was the reason for Obama and Democrats’ 2012 success.
Inexplicably, fewer Republicans and Independents came out to vote against Obama than expected, causing many Republicans across the country to lose their respective state or federal races.
One such case, and probably the most visible nation race that was determined by turnout was that of Congressman Allen West, who lost his seat to an empty-suit of a candidate, Democrat Patrick Murphy by a of couple thousand votes. If Republicans and Independents were to have turned out as they did in 2010, West would have easily won his race.
Other races that Zelizer cites, like the Senate races in Indiana and Missouri that were considered to be ‘locks’ for Republicans were ultimately lost because of the poor judgment and lack of political discipline of the Republican candidates in those races. It happens to both sides, loose-lipped ideologues who embarrass themselves and their political party.
Credit does has to be given to the Democrats, as they out-hustled Republicans and were able to get more of their people to the polls- it’s too bad they have don’t have a clue how to actually govern in a manner that is befitting a free and prosperous people. But Zelizer’s piece is way off base in many regards- these days, it’s Democrats, not Republicans, who are remaining “ideologically pure” and using “ideologically charged” rhetoric- even as its never identified as such.
At the heart of the “red to blue” trend that Zelizer describes rests an increasing amount of historical illiteracy, ignorance, and a lack of understanding about the principles which enabled this country to rise to its place of prominence in the first place- it’s certainly not any form of “enlightenment of reason” that is driving Democrats’ electoral success today. As we’ve just witnessed, Democrats know that it’s far easier to herd huge numbers of low-information voters to the polls once every four years than it is to cultivate and educate a truly informed electorate that can discern accountable leadership and demand that its constitutional liberties and national interests are safeguarded.
Share the post below.