GOP Primary Losers not endorsing Tea Party Winners

[Objective Voice]

I stumbled across this article and found it rather interesting. Normally, when a member within a party loses his or her party bid in the primaries, the loser usually endorses the winner. But according to this Washington Times article, that's not happening where the GOP and Tea Party primary winners are concerned. I find that rather odd considering that many Republicans have said they are essentially the same. Apparently, they are not.

...losing GOP hopefuls who have not endorsed the primary winner - and even have hinted at a third-party run.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, upset by tea party favorite Joe Miller in last month's primary, has yet to endorse her rival or to definitively rule out a third-party bid. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum did not endorse health care executive Rick Scott after losing the GOP gubernatorial primary to the self-financed outsider. Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth has not publicly come out for Sen. John McCain after falling short in his challenge in the Senate primary in Arizona.

Roughly a dozen GOP primary losers have not endorsed winners, including in races between tea party favorites and established candidates. In South Carolina, ousted incumbent Rep. Bob Inglis is not endorsing his victorious tea-party-backed challenger, Trey Gowdy. In Washington state, Clint Didier, who lost the GOP senatorial primary to party favorite Dino Rossi despite the support of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said Mr. Rossi must meet a list of policy demands before he will endorse him.

"For a party that is supposed to have a banner year, immense disunity could spell trouble for the Republican Party,"

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the Tea Party movement. Are they essentially Constitutionalist? Federalist? Conservatives? Or a new breed of politicians that is a fringe combination of all three?

The bigger question, however, is why aren't GOP primary losers backing their Tea Party counterparts? Are they really that different in their ideology or is this a matter of members of the GOP just being sore losers?

 

[Renae]

I stumbled across this article and found it rather interesting. Normally, when a member within a party loses his or her party bid in the primaries, the loser usually endorses the winner. But according to this Washington Times article, that's not happening where the GOP and Tea Party primary winners are concerned. I find that rather odd considering that many Republicans have said they are essentially the same. Apparently, they are not.



I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the Tea Party movement. Are they essentially Constitutionalist? Federalist? Conservatives? Or a new breed of politicians that is a fringe combination of all three?

The bigger question, however, is why aren't GOP primary losers backing their Tea Party counterparts? Are they really that different in their ideology or is this a matter of members of the GOP just being sore losers?

The only reason the Tea Party backs Candidates in the GOP is that nominally that's the party most closely aligned with the goals of the Tea Party.

The GOP Establishment is realizing that they can't play the game the way they have been and are rebelling. This is where the GOP will either survive or die. If the Tea Party back candidates win enough spots the GOP will be forced to shift right, if they don't they are done for. I really think the big story being missed here is that the GOP HAS to move right and stay there or they'll lose a LOT of support in 2012.

 

[liblady]

The only reason the Tea Party backs Candidates in the GOP is that nominally that's the party most closely aligned with the goals of the Tea Party.

The GOP Establishment is realizing that they can't play the game the way they have been and are rebelling. This is where the GOP will either survive or die. If the Tea Party back candidates win enough spots the GOP will be forced to shift right, if they don't they are done for. I really think the big story being missed here is that the GOP HAS to move right and stay there or they'll lose a LOT of support in 2012.

but the tea party candidates are republicans, are they not? i think you are mistaken........although popular with the base, far right candidates will spell trouble, i think, in general elections.

 

[Renae]

but the tea party candidates are republicans, are they not? i think you are mistaken........although popular with the base, far right candidates will spell trouble, i think, in general elections.

I'm sorry, being a Republican means you... have to be an automaton?
I'm confused on this.

I think we'll see in Nov. that what you call "Far Right" isn't so far right and the only people that will trouble are the defeated Dems.

 

[liblady]

I'm sorry, being a Republican means you... have to be an automaton?
I'm confused on this.

I think we'll see in Nov. that what you call "Far Right" isn't so far right and the only people that will trouble are the defeated Dems.

where did post anything about automatons? i'm saying what i believe, independents won't vote far right.

 

[liblady]

check this out:

Sen. Scott Brown showing a more moderate face - Politics - msnbc.com

 

[Josie]

check this out:

Sen. Scott Brown showing a more moderate face - Politics - msnbc.com

Not surprising. I wasn't one that was enamored with him when he won. I had my doubts.

 

[liblady]

Not surprising. I wasn't one that was enamored with him when he won. I had my doubts.

i was posting this to make a point to mr. v, that general elections don't normally go far right OR far left.

 

[Objective Voice]

liblady,

The linked article you provided illustrates perfectly the disconnect between the Republican Party and the Tea Party. It brings me back to my initial question: Are they Constitutionalist? Federalist? Conservatives? Or a new breed of politicians that is a fringe combination of all three?

Let me rephrase the question this way? Why are GOP Republicans refusing to endorse their Tea Party counterparts? What does the GOP find so unRepublican about them?

 

[Renae]

check this out:

Sen. Scott Brown showing a more moderate face - Politics - msnbc.com

A Liberal Republican, your point. He was farther right then any one who had been elected there in a long time, but he's still only slightly better then an Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. Really not impressed.

 

[Renae]

i was posting this to make a point to mr. v, that general elections don't normally go far right OR far left.

You made absolutely NO point. He was "Far right" for that seat, but he's really just a mildly conservative moderate. BUT for THAT state and THAT seat... it was amazing.

 

[Renae]

liblady,

The linked article you provided illustrates perfectly the disconnect between the Republican Party and the Tea Party. It brings me back to my initial question: Are they Constitutionalist? Federalist? Conservatives? Or a new breed of politicians that is a fringe combination of all three?

Let me rephrase the question this way? Why are GOP Republicans refusing to endorse their Tea Party counterparts? What does the GOP find so unRepublican about them?

IF you think that article illuminated anything, I can only doubt you from here on out. I all ready explained the problem, the GOP elite don't want to have to change, the Tea Party represents CHANGE. And as for those not endorsing? Sore losers more worried about "ME" then "US", and I haven't much use for such people.

 

[Objective Voice]

IF you think that article illuminated anything, I can only doubt you from here on out. I all ready explained the problem, the GOP elite don't want to have to change, the Tea Party represents CHANGE. And as for those not endorsing? Sore losers more worried about "ME" then "US", and I haven't much use for such people.

Must you always doubt someone's sincerity just because they're of a different party affiliation? I asked a legitimate question because I honestly don't understand the disconnect in this regard. If the situation between the GOP and the Tea Party truly is ideological differences, I would think that both sides really do need to sit down and discuss those differences. Otherwise, the Dems will play one side against the other and the old Republican guard will fall and the new movement will take over.

If it's a matter of sore losers, well, I'd say the GOP had better wipe their noses and unify behind the winners.