Category: 2010 Election

Andrew Ian Dodge asks questions about where the tea party movement is headed in 2010 over at Pajamas Media.

How far has the tea party movement come since the beginning of last year? A massive event occurred in Washington, D.C., on 9/12, and even greater numbers of people demonstrated all over the country to express their frustration. But ultimately, have they achieved any results? The bills have still gone through, and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Obama have shucked aside criticisms.

Ignoring the (majority) public outcry, some legislators have gone so far as to ban tea party members from their offices under penalty of arrest. Most of the MSM, excluding Fox, has carried the Democrats’ water, portraying tea parties as a fringe movement at best and domestic terror breeding at worst. …

What should the tea party movement be doing to make itself more effective and to not exist merely as an exploitable outlet for the frustrated? …

What may have affected the development of the activists is the fact that many seemed to have been suffering under the delusion that they were “reinventing” politics at the grassroots. Politics is politics, and even the tea party movement has been affected by egos, personality clashes, regionalism, and fakery.

The tea party movement may be best served by operating locally. Mass rallies in D.C. and phone-calling initiatives do not seem to be effective in modern politics. Local activism could have an actual effect, and is a good part of what the left has done to gain power.

The movement needs to be thinking about 2012 and beyond. They need to train themselves to effectively work in the political sphere that exists, not the fantasy one that has been created by the enthusiasm of the movement. Obama fooled millions with a promised “new dawn in politics.”

It’s interesting because it goes along with something else I read on TechPresident over the holidays from the left perspective on why the “transformed” campaign-style of Obama was really not the mythical bottom-up campaign the press has claimed.  It was a modern twist on an old style of campaigning, it’s just that Obama was the first presidential candidate to use the new technological tools to pull it off.  As best described, they shared tasks, not power.  It was still very top-down.

The tea party movement is similar.  It’s not really that new for people to protest their government, it’s just that it hasn’t been done in a while (at least on our side) and we’re taking advantage of new tools to do it.  Granted, I’m not as pessimistic about the outcomes as Dodge seems to be because I think the movement has put up serious roadblocks that no party with a super majority could have imagined.  Yet, we have.  Remember when health care was going to be written only by progressives and passed with a signature by August?  The moderates in the Democratic Party at least had a voice in the current versions, and Pelsoi and Reid are so scared that they are conducting the closed door meetings to get the thing passed themselves instead of going the usual conference route.  That doesn’t make the end result any prettier, but this is not something that could have been predicted when Obama took office with the numbers he had in Congress.

But what next?  Dodge makes the very spot on point that the tea party movement faces an uphill battle trying to go the route of forming a third party in most states.  But what they can do is influence the primary process in both parties and the general election result for area races.

In our district, there are at least four declared challengers to Patrick Murphy (D-BigSpenderVille), and the local tea party organizers who put on a phenomenally successful event last year is hosting a candidate forum.  This is not only useful as a way to be taken more seriously by the political class, but it’s also a huge potential boost for candidates themselves.  With the primary bout between these candidates just over four months away, any supporters they pick up at the forum will be worth their weight in gold even if they give just a couple of hours of time stuffing envelopes or making phone calls in advance of the election.  Talk about making future lawmakers sit up and listen now – this is the way to do it.

That said, here’s the nationwide primary calender.  While this is officially only for Congressional races, most states have only one primary date, so it should also apply to just about all state offices as well.  The votes of your immediate family may well be enough to swing a low level primary race, so don’t bitch that your votes don’t matter.  Even making a victory more decisive can make a huge difference in fundraising and attention a candidate can receive from the party folks.

Illinois, you’re up first in February.  Next it’s Texas in March.  Early May has Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio.  For those of you in Ohio, your state elections are of vital importance.  Your state is losing two entire Congressional districts.  Whatever party leads in the 2010 elections will decide which districts are cut.  That’s not an issue that you can change in the next election, that’s a result you live with for at least 10 years.

Follow this link over the Anarchangel, and watch all five video of Gingrich’s speech to David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. Well worth your time.

Some challenges we’re going to face in our issue in 2010, and they are numerous.

• MAIG is continuing to build itself into an increasingly virulent organization, and they are usage our local mayors to build political legitimacy. Personally, Bitter and I have a good bit of work to do in this area, as MAIG has signed up more than a few mayors in our respective districts.
• We have to be mindful of redistricting that will be happening post 2010, as a result of the Census. Texas stands to gain four seats. The only blue state that stands to gain is Washington. Pennsylvania will lose a Congressional seat. If the PA house doesn’t turn around, the Democrats will have a lot more input into redistricting than the GOP.
• We have to be involved in the primary process in both parties, but especially the GOP. The GOP stands to make substantial gains in 2010, and we want them to gain with pro-gun candidates. Since guns aren’t the first thing on people’s minds, this is going to be a real challenge. We won’t do the Second Amendment any favors if we replace good pro-gun Democrats with soft or anti-gun Republicans.
• The 2010 elections themselves are going to be critical. Bitter and I will certainly be busy with helping out NRA endorsed candidates here at the local level. Chances are we’re going to lose Harry Reid, so things are going to get more difficult for us in the Senate. Chance of the GOP turning the Senate are virtually nil, just because of who’s up. The House is a different matter, and we could switch that back to GOP control. Getting Nancy Pelosi and her cronies being out of power will be a good thing for our gun rights, but it’s probably not going to change much.
• Pennsylvanians get to elect a new Governor this year. We will finally be rid of Ed Rendell. All three GOP contenders are good on gun rights. We’re very lucky there. The Democrats are a mixed bag, with several candidates being rabidly anti-gun. We have to be cautious here.

It’s going to be a very interesting year, that’s for sure. But this year, we have an opportunity to change things. This will be our first opportunity to tell Obama and Pelosi what we think of their leadership.

Looks like someone is considering running against Kirsten Gillibrand other than Rudy and Elmer. She a reliable vote for the other side at this point, so even if they are running and anti-gun Republican against her, it would at least send a message to Gilly that her flip-flop on the issue wasn’t able to save her.

Looks like we have another one. Jim Geraghty likes his resume. I agree, he looks like a good candidate. He can neutralize some of Murphy’s strengths. I have no idea where any of the candidates stand on the Second Amendment yet, but once the serious candidates get separated from the non-serious ones, it’ll be something to look at. It’s not going to help much to replace Murphy with a Republican like Jim Greenwood, who represented this district before, but was no friend of gun owners.

This big question in 2010 will be whether the GOP will be willing to spend any real money in the 8th. They have fights in the 6th and 7th congressional districts, which are open seats, and will no doubt be targeting Kanjorski, Holden, Carney, Altmire, and Dalkemper as well. That’s a lot of races, and Murphy is sitting on a ton of cash. But cash doesn’t mean squat if the Dems don’t turn out next November. I think the GOP still stands a good chance.

Over at Capitol Ideas, there’s also some good advice for Republicans:

Find Candidates That Fit Their Constituencies And Districts. If he were advising Democrats, Republican consultant Ray Zaborney of Harrisburg said he’d tell them to “find people who are true to where your party is, but make sure you modernize your message.”

Fresh off a trip to Virginia, where he advised state Republicans, Zaborney pointed to GOP gubernatorial candidate Robert McDonnell, who he says beat Democrat Creigh Deeds last week by appealing both to moderates and the party’s conservative base.
“Bob McDonnell is as conservative as they come, but he talked about issues people care about,” Zaborney said.

He contrasted McDonnell with the example of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who was defeated by Democrat Bill Owens, handing the Democrats a win in New York’s 23rd Congressional District for the first time in a century.
Unlike the doctrinaire Hoffman, who was backed by national conservatives,McDonnell “stayed true to his principles, but moved past just tax cuts and vouchers for education,” Zaborney said.

“The one who wins is the one that consolidates both sides of their party best and, of course, the middle,” he said.

I’ve never believed the common wisdom often heard on conservative talk radio that if only we ran candidates who were conservative enough, we’d be guaranteed victory. It’s certainly a mistake to run left leaning candidates like Scozzafava in a district that could support a right-of-center moderate, but Doug Hoffman probably wasn’t the right man for that district. Understand that he lost in a year when Democratic turnout was pitiful. He might have won the seat for one term, or two, but if he governed too far to the right of his district, he’d be open to an attack from the center. If anyone doesn’t think that’s a possibility, just ask Rick Santorum.

Whether Republicans want to admit it or not, the Democrats have made great gains by running candidates who tailored their message to their districts, and are now using it to push an agenda that is far to the left, even for many of the Democrats they used to get their majority back. I fully believe the Democrats will be punished in 2010 for running too far to the left of the country, but it’s hard to argue the strategy hasn’t been effective for promoting a progressive agenda. The GOP has a lot they can learn in the example.

Before Nancy Pelosi even had the votes counted, someone created a Facebook group to dump Patrick Murphy. I signed up. The Democrats seem to think this area is true blue, but only four years ago, 3 out of the 4 congressional districts representing the Philadelphia suburbs were held by the GOP. Murphy ran as a Blue Dog, sells himself as a Blue Dog, but is really an unrepentant leftist. Far too liberal for Bucks County. You’d be hard pressed to get a deep red conservative elected in my district, but I think the GOP could capture the middle with the right message against Murphy.

In 2008, the GOP geared up Tom Manion to run on Iraq as an issue, but by the time the election rolled around everyone cared bout the economy. The GOP needs to hit Murphy on the topics he’s vulnerable. He won’t be able to count on Obama’s coattails in 2010, and Murphy has done plenty of offend our district, if someone will only tell them. I sincerely hope the GOP mounts a serious challenge to Murphy in 2010. This is probably our best chance to unseat him.