New Conservative SuperPac Formed To Blunt Tea Party Influence in Primaries

“Conservative Victory Project” will support “the most conservative candidates who can win”

With designs on winning control of the U.S. Senate in 2014, a new SuperPac financed by the biggest donors in the Republican Party has been formed to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from they types of primary challenges that resulted in the candidacies Todd Akin, Richard Murdock and Christine O’Donnell, according to an article in The New York Times.

Akin of Missouri, Murdock of Indiana and O’Donnell of Delaware each defeated establishment Republican candidates in Senate Republican primaries and went on to lose general elections that Republicans were expected to win after making public statements considered too far-right and out of the mainstream.  Akin and Murdock lost in 2012. O’Donnell lost in 2010.

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”D

2014 Senate races in Iowa and Georgia will be the initial focus of the Conservative Victory Project.  Senators Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa and Saxby Chambliss (R) of Georgia have announced their retirements, creating wide open races for those seats.

Preventing the Senate nomination of Iowa Congressman Steve King is an early objective of the project.  Last week Harper Polling published a survey indicating that King in favored over the more moderate Republican Congressman Tom Latham in both a multi-candidate and head to head Republican primary for Harkin’s seat.  The same survey indicated that Latham would defeat the Democratic front runner, Congressman Bruce Braley, in the general election.

“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

Mr. King has compiled a record of incendiary statements during his time in Congress, including comparing illegal immigrants to dogs and likening Capitol Hill maintenance workers to “Stasi troops” after they were ordered to install environmentally friendly light bulbs. But he rejected the suggestion that his voting record or previous remarks would keep him from winning if he decided to run for the Senate.

King earned the support of Governor Chris Christie in his 2010 and 2012 reelection races by coming to the former U.S. Attorney’s defense during congressional hearings in 2009 that were designed by Democrats to derail Christie’s gubernatorial campaign against Jon Corzine.   However, King voted against the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill last month.  Christie declined to say if he would support King in the future at a Sandy related press conference.

Posted: February 3rd, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Republican Party | Tags: , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

12 Comments on “New Conservative SuperPac Formed To Blunt Tea Party Influence in Primaries”

  1. AKA The No More Badar Quarmonts Movement said at 8:54 am on February 3rd, 2013:

    I Just Can’t Wait To To Hear BSTP Babs Scream About This

  2. Bob who???? said at 9:54 am on February 3rd, 2013:

    Ms. Gonzo—–a member of the GOP establishment (Board Member) seems to have quite the conundrum here………

  3. Bob English said at 10:20 am on February 3rd, 2013:

    I’d assume the Govorner, he will not be taking phone calls seeking fundrasing help from people like King or Rubio (who both voted against Sandy relief) or Boehner or ignored the Governors phone calls.

  4. What I Don't Get Bob said at 10:43 am on February 3rd, 2013:

    Is that people don’t get the reason why Conservatives voted against the Sandy relief bill, that it contained PORK unrelated to Sandy relief.

    This is what always happens, bills get sent up, LADEN WITH PORK that always seems to increase our debt without having offsets to reduce the cost. That’s all we want, no pork and divert frivolous spending to meaningful, STRAIGHT UP BILLS like the Sandy Relief.

    Rather, people would chose to lash out at Conservatives who only want to do the right thing for ALL Americans, you included.

    So, I gather that Bob English is FOR pork and spending that had nothing to do with Sandy.

  5. Maureen Kelly said at 10:47 am on February 3rd, 2013:

    Way to make your base stay home, losers.

  6. Joe Foster said at 12:43 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    It is a shame that the establishment feels so compelled to attack a person who is actually supportive of the general goals of the Republican party and truly wants the best for her family, town, county, state and yes, country. These attacks may make the folks that don’t want to identify themselves feel good however they do little if anything to shed light on a constructive and effective way ahead. One that is sorely needed in order to save the Republican party going forward.

    If I am reading between the lines here correctly cannot anonymity, discuss these in a face to face (at least individual to individual) intelligent and grown up manner, then I will have to leave my thoughts (also shared by many) on the issue of supporting candidates that can “win” in a general election through the anonymity of the blogoshere.

    Unfortunately, and in my opinion for far too long we have been asked to vote for either; 1) the lesser of two evils or, 2) he or she is not the other guy. In this day and age (and make no mistake about it, we are in the 11th hour for saving this once great country) we no longer have the luxury of saying ” our candidate will slow our careening into oblivion (speaking euphemistically about our 80 year lurch towards socialism) when in reality, all 13 planks of the 1929 Socialist party presidential platform are now in place, the last being National Healtcare. We are just about over the cliff and if we keep putting our faith in the elected officials that have done little if anything to stem this avalanch, we will surely be lost forever.

    I assume that by your unkind words for Barb, you are suggesting that to be “good” Republicans that we must lower our expectations of our elected officials and just fall in line to win what is increasingly becoming meaningless elections. If these expectations are all we can look forward to for our elected officials then perhaps you are right in your insinuations, the TP should leave or just get in line and do as its told.

    For argument’s sake, forget about what we should be doing to preserve and protect our nation, a nation that has survived and thrived, why? Because ordinary citizens had taken the time to suffer ridicule for speaking their minds and to cherish the vote that was paid for in blood, and yes, even to protest when things were going against what they believe to be right and true. These patriotic acts by ordinary citizens that have decided to not just follow orders blindly but rather learn, think and act according to their conscience may be part of the solution to saving not only the party, but also perhaps the country.

    This may be part of the yin and yang of change that without certain catalysts of change, things become stagnant and moribund. Historically, I believe that is led at least in part to the destruction of the Whig party and the establishment of the Republican party. The same set of circumstances may be coming together even now. As I see it, the Republican party (at all levels) must make a choice, evolve or die. Evolution needs a certain amount of revolutionary ferver necessary to stoke the fires if you will. The choices are also most interesting right now. For those who wish to blame the Tea Party for Republican electoral failures should reflect carefully because making the wrong determination will have consequences. It is the unintended consequences that will be most interesting. Mistakenly thinking that by destroying the Tea Party, the faithful will return meekly to the fold is fallacious at best and downright self destructive at worst. Republicans have the ability to either resist and defeat the Progressives and the George Soros of the world by being bold and inventive or become the modern day equivalent of the whig party and sail off into the sunset of history.

    I urge all to think long and hard before taking on the roll of destroyer because what you may be ultimately destroying is your own cause.

    This is I believe part of what is wrong with the entire mindset of the moderate/establishment movement, especially recognizable within beltway by both Republicans as well as Democrats.

    Between UN treaties now being signed by a Socialist/Progress Senate with the acquiescence of the majority, establishment Republicans, we are in real danger of transferring our sovereignty to the nations of the world. Who will stand and resist? Will it really be the Establishment Moderates, or the newly minted, young outsiders (I.e., Rand Pauls, etc.)? I think that if you follow such things, the truth is stark. Go along to get along is no longer an option! For so long the country has been sliding steadily and now is rushing headlong into socialism (there are no words to mince anymore). Why? all because we have been told to not follow our conscience or to speak power to the truth but rather to trust that our candidates and elected officials know better how to save the country. So, if you think that it is necessary to hold those in the TP to some standard based upon compliance and submission to the old fashioned power structure, I think that you might be in for an unhappy surprise. We must hold not only ourselves to a hire standard but especially to those we entrust with leadership. I tell you now, that has not been the case and a movement back to supporting only those we think can be elected, even if they are little more than closest Dems and Rinos, will be the sure path to destruction for all of us.

    In closing, sometimes the message has been confused with the messenger and now this seems more true than ever. Let’s for arguments sake blame all of the current ills of “mainstream” Republican candidates on the Tea Party (scapegoating anyone?) and that it is somehow the TP’s fault that Mitt Romney failed in his presidential bid, or that the Republicans who were ousted during the primary process feel cheated. Has it ever occurred to you that they may have already sowed the seeds of their own defeat just because they did not earn the respect and trust of their constituents because of the way they handled that trust while in office? So, are their obvious shortcomings the fault of the Tea Party? I think not however it may represent what has been said within this thread. the message is that we (Republicans) don’t want to evolve or reinvigorate our party and to in essence to allow it to die the same as did the Whig party back in the 17850’s. That is what the attacking statements sound like.

    This attacking our friends (at least at this point) does no one any good other than the Dems, the Progressives, Socialists and others who hate what our country stands for. If you look deeply enough and at least consider through the prism of intellectual integrity, you will not dispute these points.

    I welcome anyone to join in an intelligent and honest dialogue on these issues. You may consider that the time has come for a new way of approaching governance not only at the local level but also beyond. In order to effectively stop the all out assault on our freedoms and Constitution, it will take all of us thinking beyond ourselves and out of the box to come to a strong and durable solution. If you attack someone that may not have the “conventional” view and refuse to at least consider their thoughts and passions, who will really be the loser? For what its worth.

  7. No Jeff Foster said at 12:49 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    We Are Just Talking About Eliminating Candidates Like Bader Quarmont & Joe Rullo Who Have NO Chance. As Well, We Should Be Eliminating False Prophets Like Babs Who Have NO Capability To Pick & Vet Candidates, Let Alone Run Their Campaigns.

    If that is not “intelligent enough” discussion for you, in as few a words as possible; well then I don’t know what to do or say.

  8. Helene Henkel said at 3:39 pm on February 3rd, 2013:


    Well stated Joe. Prehaps some of those on this site who like to blame others for their own short comings are a member of the Kept Con group

  9. Bob English said at 5:40 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    I will side with the Governor and the NJ Congressional delegation and say thank you to those in Congress that had the decency to finally pass the Sandy aide bill.

    As for “pork”, almost all of it was removed and while there where a few things included in the bill that while needed should have been considered separately, at this point (3 months after that disaster) that was no reason to vote agaisnt the bill.

    Note that the House had adjourned without even considering the Senate passed bill despite pleas from NJ and NY Congressmen and the Governors attempts to reach the Speaker (calls that went unanswered.) And if there were parts of that bill they did not like, they could have easilly removed them and passed an alternative bill.

    The amazing thing is that members of Congress whose states and districts have received billions of dollars in disaster relief in the past (much of which came from NJ. NY and CT. residents) actually had the gall to vote against the bill when the people who had helped them in the past were now the ones in desperate need.

  10. But You Also Forget Bob said at 5:58 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    That The Senate Held Up The Sandy Aid As Well, Trying To Pressure The Republicans On The Filibuster Rules.

    And There Was Still Plenty Of Pork In The Final Bill.

  11. Joe Foster said at 8:21 pm on February 3rd, 2013:

    No Jeff Foster, interesting tag….is it real and what does it mean? When debating, I like to go mano a mano usually with a name and a face.

    Intellectually speaking, if the goal is to run people who might have a slim “chance” of winning (for example, Kryllos vs Menendez) regardless of their records as opposed to, according to you a candidate with “no” chance of winning (Karmout), would we really be any the worse off, especially if one candidate took a very principled and strong stand that posed a clear difference between he and Menendez or one that took a very “moderate” and plain vanilla, uninspired stance? Either way we lose. The difference could be that even though the election is a loss, it still gives the candidate a chance to get his message out and hopefully differentiate himself from his opponent(s). Going forward, that candidate becomes viable. A good example was the number of times that Ronald Reagan (the establishment always said that he was unelectable) ran and lost until finally, his message was appropriate for the times and he not only got himself elected but he also established the gold standard for integrity and effectiveness.

    Could it be that perhaps the party establishment is again attacking candidates and movements that they believe have no chance of winning and instead rush to embrace the same old establishment moderates. You know, the ones that continue to lose election after election (Dole, McCain, Ford…….). Does anyone remember their campaign slogans or platforms? I doubt it, they weren’t very memorable and perhaps that is the reason they lose time after time. Tea Party candidates are more memorable aren’t they? Why, because the have a message and a cause and speak with the power of their convictions, right or wrong.

    If a candidate has no message other than I’m not the other guy, and the compelling argument becomes one purely of establishment control, I fail to see the value in that other than it becomes a somewhat narcissistic endeavor for someone (don’t you love playing golf with the president Mr. Speaker?). Meanwhile, the legislative clock continues to tick and our hard earned freedoms continue to disappear while the establishment wallows in its perks and power. This is also a weak group of leaders that don’t want to rock the boat (perhaps for fear of losing those perks and that power). Are they operating in our best interests? Again, I think not. What have we gained of value by accepting this status quo? Absolutely nothing of value!

    Having candidates that are willing to work hard and resist the co-option that always takes place when they arrive in Washington is absolutely necessary if we are to get better governance. You know that they are taken to the woodshed if they don’t fall in line and do as they are told. This is not representative government however it is more like the old Soviet Politburo. This is especially true when the House and Senate Republican leadership continues to cave on all important issues to this president while at the same time purging the committees of the “dangerous” Tea Party types. With these purges (sounds like a similar activity is taking place at the local level as well) the end results will not be what the leadership seems to think it will be. The unintended consequences across the board could be catastrophic!

    As for your observation about karmout hurting Kryllos’ chances of winning, truth is he never had a chance, with or without Karmout. He had no distinguishing message and no fire in the belly to do what needed to be done to win. He, I believe had the same level of desire for his office as did Mitt Romney (remember his son said that he really didn’t want to run for president) Accordingly, the campaign that Kryllos waged was unfortunately a weak one that was again, doomed from the start regardless of Karmout’s presence. When the postmortem was completed, it showed that Karmout did not hurt Kryllos’ chances of winning. Many believe that it was because of a lackluster message and weak campaign. Nothing against Mr. Kryllos, his campaign and message was what it was, moderate and plain vanilla. That approach rarely if ever wins in big contests.

    There is also a sense that the establishment leadership in Washington was actually believing what their pundits were saying and they decided to play it safe. You know, don’t be controversial, be liked by the media (fat chance) and don’t upset anyone’s apple cart, especially the leadership in Washington. Also, let’s be clear, Obama is not destroying this party, the party is destroying itself through this lurching to moderation (whatever that means).

    With all that being said, it is still not too late to stop the slide to oblivion however, we must come to terms with what must be done first. Part of that is to reconcile and incorporate many views, some new, some old and to distill the end product into innovation and a renewal of the spirit that made this country great. We must not attack dissenting voices just because we don’t understand what they are saying or refuse to believe that they just might be right. They just might bring a new way of tackling some of the weighty issues that we as a party and nation will be facing through the next couple of election cycles.

    It is time to reinvigorate the party at all levels and to work together to this end. If we cannot do that, then the party will splinter, perhaps permanently. Status quo and following the “old” model will probably no longer cut the mustard! Platitudes, weak slogans and past glories will not put food on the table or gas in the tank or more importantly, stop our national slide into irrelevance at the hands of the party in power.

    For these reasons, I for one would rather vote my conscience and support a candidate that says what he/she means and votes accordingly, without apology regardless of outcome. The question is; why must we continue to do things the same old way time after time again, expecting different results? That is the definition of insanity! It is time that we wake up and understand that the electorate is; 1) lazy and 2) in need of a wake-up call, 3) has the attention span of a 30 second sound bite, and they vote accordingly. Rush calls these the “Low information” voters and unfortunately there are way too many of them.

    It is important that someone shakes things up, especially for what has become a failing, moribund party leadership system. This must be done by putting pressure on the leadership as well as elected officials. They (as must we) be forced out of their respective comfort zones by insisting that they act in our best interests (for a change) and not theirs. Make them realize that if they don’t become more responsive, we will find people who will be. That is the message that many of the activist groups are trying put forth.

    If we continue to attack one another with negativity and name calling, I guarantee that the results at the polls will continue to lead to more of the same painful outcomes. You know, bad for us, good for the Progressives. The conundrum is really between choosing frick and frack candidates or candidates with a little more pizzazz, idealism, fresh ideas and the energy that comes with such a mindset.

    That is as unvarnished and honest a view as I can muster. It is especially true regarding the current state of affairs within the national Republican party. It also represents the rationale for perhaps embracing the TP and its views as opposed to declaring war on it. These Stalinesq purges do no one any good now do they? I can safely say that this type of coordinated attack is ill-advised.

  12. No Joe Foster said at 7:43 am on February 4th, 2013:

    I like simple, short and sweet comments instead of inane babble that puts people to sleep.

    It’s the content, not the person that should matter.


    “Forever Anonymous”