Scott Rasmussen writes that Republican Washington leaders are trying to find ways to prevent primary challenges – and especially the kinds of primary challenges where the insurgent winner blows winnable Senate races. Several thoughts:
1. Sometimes insurgent primary challenger are a really good idea. The Republican establishment wanted that weasel Charlie Crist to be the Republican Senate nominee in 2010. We’re a lot better off with Marco Rubio.
2. Republican primary voters are able to support establishment or even outright moderate candidates. Scott Brown was something of a Tea Party hero despite being on the moderate side of the Republican party. What Brown did was build his campaign around a small number of high salience issues on which he and most conservatives agreed. He was for lower tax rates, against Obamacare and against civilian trials for accused terrorists. Compare Brown’s campaign with that of Michael Castle in Delaware. Castle’s campaign took conservatives for granted when it didn’t treat their concerns as a nuisance. I remember going on Castle’s website a couple of days before the primary and it just didn’t look like a the website of a guy trying to win over Republican primary voters. The result was that he was defeated by the ridiculous Christine O’Donnell. If he had shown as much respect for conservatives as Scott Brown, that probably wouldn’t have happened.
January 13th, 2013 | 8:46 pm
1. There’s a case to be made that primaries are in general a very bad, non-democratic, oligarchy-reinforcing practice. For instance, the need to run in so many primary contests is why presidential candidates (and presidents) have to spend so much time fund-raising, and why the ability to raise money trumps nearly everything else.
2. As Pete says, the DC GOP establishment has shown itself no more able to pick competent and “electable” candidates than those crazy Tea Partiers.
3. These DC idiots should tread lightly or they’ll be hand-picking candidates for the Whig Party.
January 13th, 2013 | 10:22 pm
[...] Scott Rasmussen writes that Republican Washington leaders are trying to find ways to prevent primary challenges – and especially the kinds of primary challenges where the insurgent winner blows winnable Source: Postmodern Conservative [...]
January 13th, 2013 | 11:45 pm
Pete, it occurs to me that John Huntsman – a smart guy who did have some good, conservative ideas – may have suffered from the same ailment as Castle. In other words, his campaign might have had more impact if he had been able to stifle his impulse to show his contempt for most conservatives. Of course, his having been part of the Obama administration didn’t help, either.
January 14th, 2013 | 3:09 pm
I don’t have much to add except to say that I hope the Establishment takes your advice. I live in Indiana and voted for Mourdock in the primary, and a significant part of my motivation was the fact that Lugar scorned the whole process. He seemed offended that he was even being asked to give an accounting to conservatives of his time as a senator. A little humility on his part might have gone a long way towards saving his job.
January 14th, 2013 | 7:44 pm
DJF, that’s just right. Building a post around your point actually.
January 14th, 2013 | 8:32 pm
[...] an earlier post I wrote that establishment Republicans need to avoid showing contempt for the Republican primary voters [...]
January 15th, 2013 | 8:35 am
[...] Insurgents And The Establishment – Pete Spoliakos, PoMoCon / First Things [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact