Question: When did the Cocktail Party GOP establishment as we know it congeal its power?
I’d like to spend some time today looking back to discover when the Cocktail Party GOP establishment as we know it congealed its power.
We all know the Republican establishment didn’t support Ronald Reagan and tried its best to thwart his 1980 run for the White House.
So, I am assuming that Reagan cleared out the establishment types after his inauguration in 1981…and I further assume these people did not call the shots while Reagan was in office.
I’m guessing the Cocktail Party GOP establishment as we know it today was birthed by the first President Bush, sometime in late 1988 or in 1989.
This makes sense to me, because Cocktail Party GOP establishment stupidity can, in retrospect, be faulted for Bush’s loss in 1992…and then the disaster that was Bob Dole’s “it’s his turn” presidential campaign. The Cocktail Party almost lost the 2000 election against Al Gore…and Cocktail Party decisions were directly to blame for Republican losses in 2006 that turned power back to the Left.
The “it’s his turn” mentality favored by the Cocktail Party GOP establishment resulted in McCain 2008 — a campaign that just gave up on itself in September of that year, while simultaneously including Cocktail Party attacks on Governor Sarah Palin while she was McCain’s running mate.
The Cocktail Party GOP establishment has aggressively assailed Tea Party Americans as much as the Left has attacked us. The Tea Party and what it really represents is an existential threat to both the Left and the Cocktail Party GOP establishment.
I’d love your help today thinking about who exactly the Cocktail Party leaders are, and where they congealed their power. The Cocktail Party is aggressively pushing the nomination of Mittens Romneycare as the lastest “it’s his turn” candidate. I believe Romneycare is the only Republican who will lose to Barack Obama in the general election because the Left’s plan is to run Romneycare as the GOP nominee while encouraging a third party candidate like Jon Huntsman to split Republican votes enough so that Obama squeaks through to re-election.
That third party stunt will only work with Romneycare, since fewer Republican voters want Mittens as the nominee than supported McCain in 2008. If the Left funds a third party candidate like Huntsman, people who won’t vote for Romneycare will have somewhere to register a protest vote.
The Left would never get away with funding Huntsman if Herman Cain was the GOP nominee, however. It would look like flat-out racism to have Huntsman challenge both Obama and Cain — two black candidates running for president. This gambit only works with Romneycare (who, incidentally, as a candidate allows the Left to take Obamacare off the table in the next election, since Mittens won’t attack Obama on something based squarely on Mittens’ own actions as Massachusetts Governor).
When do you think the Cocktail Party GOP establishment congealed itself as we know it today?
Who was responsible for this?
Who are the real driving forces within this permanent political class?
© 2011, Kevin DuJan. All rights reserved.
Also Recommended:
- QUESTION: What does the Cocktail Party GOP establishment think of Rick Perry?
- Question: What will you do if the Cocktail Party establishment succeeds in making Mitt Romney the nominee?
- Bad news for the Cocktail Party establishment: Mittens Romney’s big donors not backing another presidential run for him
- QUESTION: Is the reason the GOP Cocktail Party establishment won't push Obamacare as an election issue because they want to protect Mittens Romney's 2012 candidacy?
- What was your last straw with the Cocktail Party GOP establishment?
Latest Buzz:
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
Kevin, it was 1886 when Bob "old white man" Dole got the nomination (and not his wife Elizabeth or flat-tax Forbes) — because it was, "his turn". Bush the younger, rocked that because he didn't pay his dues first, we (boomers) wanted someone younger, that was of our generation. And it worked, and then we went right back to "old white man" Mc Cain as the nominee. His choice of Sarah, rocked their world, and now, they won't take a chance on anyone but as you put it, "white toast with cucumbers"…
Sarah would have won, Cain is new to all of us, still don't know, Bachmann isn't Sarah, Perry doesn't have the 'fleet of tongue' to handle the press (but probably the balls)…. and the rest don't even come to mind. And to be honest, Ron Paul might be excellent, but when I hear his name, I think first of the cross-dresser RuPaul, call it 'brand recognition problem….
Bachmann isn't Sarah but Sarah refused to take her place in history. Sarah let down a whole generation. The Generation X that wanted her to be their standard bearer and first woman president.
So, looking at the other candidates: old white men and one old, non experienced Black man the only choice for conservatives and young people is Michelle Bachmann. She is also a boomer but an attractive and historic boomer. And above all: 100% conservative with a record to show.
Michelle Bachmann is the only candidate that can cut into Obama biggest strenght: his first Black president mantra. Obama is still young, charismatic, speaks well and is a mass manipulator with a billion dollars to crush any competition except THE FIRST WOMAN NOMINATED FOR US PRSIDENT!!!!! CAPISCE>??? UNDERSTAND? COMPRENDE? WAKARISMSKA?
I am a woman and I would never pick a presidential candidate just because she was a woman. I don't care how attractive she is. Jeez. That would be like voting for BHO just because of his skin color. Only a dumbell would do that.
I am not 100% socially conservative. Michelle Bachmann is. She is NOT my first choice for our nominee. At this point I am most interested in Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. My state is not one of the early primary voters, so I'll see who's still standing and pick my favorite among them. Ultimately, I will vote for whichever candidate carries the R banner. I do not think that candidate will be Michelle Bachmann.
SARAH MAY NOT BE FINISHED YET. SHE STATED SHE WAS NOT SEEKING THE 2012 "GOP" NOMINATION- NOT THE CONSERVATIVE OR INDEPENDENT NOMINATION. LET US WAIT AND SEE. IN LISTENING TO DONALD TRUMP, I THINK HE LIKES SARAH AND THEY HAVE A COALITION UP THEIR SLEEVES IF THEY ARE NOT HAPPY WITH RESULTS AS THE PRIMARY APPROACHES. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY–I WILL LEAVE PRESIDENTIAL LINE BLANK. I AM NOT SURE ABOUT CAIN EITHER. HE TALKS THE TALK, BUT IS HE ANOTHER PUPPET OF THE ILLUMINATI TO FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?? I REMEMBER HE SAID, "I WILL WIN THE PRESIDENCY" WAY LAST YEAR. IS THAT THE "FIX" BY THE ROTHSCILD CARTEL TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS. DONT FORGET, HE WORKED FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE OF KANSAS CITY.
Actually, in 1865.
The Republican Party has always had a schism between a Populist faction and a Plutocratic faction. It goes to the origins of the party, when the Corn Belt populists and the New England plutocrats joined together to block the Southern Democrats.
But it was a marriage of convenience. The Plutocrats needed Populist votes, the Populists needed Plutocrat money.
Since then, the Plutocrats have usually controlled the Party. It's easier for a small group to maintain focus – and the Populists, by definition, are a larger group more prone to turning to their own private affairs between elections. However, it is the Populists that have provided the great electoral victories. Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Reagan…Populists. The Plutocrats might win elections, but they don't win big.
This fight has been going on for a long time…and won't end anytime soon.
I agree. All you have to do is look at the loss the conservative portion of the party dealt with in the last few decades. First, Goldwater in the 60's and then Reagan in the 80's. When the moderates (Cocktail Party) had to eat crow after a big win (like Reagan), they do so but only for a short period of time…sort of like the liberal/progressive nuts in the dem party that make their "move" every 20-30 years. Both groups continue to follow the same unworkable path time after time. Luckily, the people make their wishes known after each attempted takeover. Only this time, I'm not so sure that either party – as we used to know them – will survive.
The cocktail Northeastern crowd of the GOp goes back to the early beginning of the party. The repubics (no error in spelling I am channeling Mark Levin) were born as a third party protesting the failure of the Whigs & the Democrats to face the real problems of the nation in the 1850s (states'. rights vs national Supremacy, industrialization, fugitive slave laws, the Dred Scott decision, the spread of slavery in the west, & where to build a transcontinental railroad.
With the asendance of the Repubs after the Civil War a twenty year battle in the party erupted between the Mugwumps & the Stalwarts The Stalwarts were essentially thecocktail go along to get along faction of Norteasterners,
The cocktail party started with HW Bush is my guess.
I think the GOP, the conservative movement and the Tea Party went to Limbo on october 5, 2011. The day Sarah Palin confessed she never intended to run for president.
If Michelle Bachmann is not the nominee, Obama will win again and will be Palin's fault!
I agree with your timeline, but object to the premise. The establishment republicans never went anywhere – Reagan did not purge them all – he had not the power, or even the desire, to do so. The establishment is a massive organism, residing in many places – state houses and congress – where they are beyond the reach of any president. For instance, Karl Rove was getting Governor Clements elected in Texas while Reagan was in office. But we need a deeper understanding of why, rather than who.
The conspiracy of the establishment republicans is not well organized. It is composed of many people working in the political system, either in patronage or elected positions. They are, therefore, parasites of the same order as the democrat establishment. They might espouse an ideology, but to them, FEELING an ideology is a waste of time and effort – it is for the rubes (That is us) who actually believe this stuff. An establishment member, of either party, believes in one thing, which is his own personal advancement in his career.
That is why the republican establishment is just as likely to enact massive new entitlements as the democrats. These programs serve as a fount of power for the establishment. Fannie Mae may advance an ideological agenda, but it also provides about 50 well paid patronage jobs, where staff can be parked (and fed) between elections. There are many of such programs, each supplying a power base and patronage opportunities.
Before I go too far OT, I must say that there is precious little difference between the establishments of both parties. They say different things, they attract different voters, but once in office they all act the same. That is why any truly non-establishment candidate, like Herman Cain, is vilified by both sides. When the left calls Cain an idiot "who can't spell Iraq," the republican establishment chuckles, and will not come to his rescue, because they know that he must be destroyed, since he will not dole very many of the thousands of patronage positions a new president has in his control to THEIR people. He might even do what it right for America. That is truly too dumb to be allowed.
So the republican establishment is all for Willard Romney, since they can control him. He knows the game, and has been proven to play it by their rules. He will feed the snake of ever bigger government for them, and, like all the rest who came before, he will hope that, when the fit hits the shan, he will be safely in retirement, with his millions. The rest of can all go straight to hell, as far as Willard cares. And no matter what happens, the establishment will soldier on.
Mr. Gersh nails it. It is about amassing power. In the State of Illinois, we have "the combine"–a play on agriclutural equipment–to describe the establishment of both major parties to screw the voter. The GOP runs half-baked conservatives who are willing to compromise with the Dems. The GOP figures it dare not run a true conservative because it is embarassing. The Dems run almost everything here.
I was a delegate to the last Convention of the Illinois Repubican Party. It was blue blazers, button-down collars, and ties all around. Then there were their women in painful high heels following them around like puppy dogs. To the average person (like myself): The Cocktailer are glad to take our money; not glad enough to take us seriously.
First, I thought it was GHW Bush, then I thought of Tom Dewey (immortalized by one of the Roosevelt daughters as resempling the little man on top of a wedding cake), then I remembered the family stories handed down from my Great Grandfather about Teddy Roosevelt when he & his rough riders went to Cuba (my great Grandfather was there at the time…lets just say they weren't as heroic as the news stories of the day).
I'm now inclined to agree with Mike M that this probably goes back to the beginning of the R's.