Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Paul Ryan, the Scam PACs, and a Failure of Conservative Journalism
Paul Ryan will convincingly win his primary election tomorrow. This has never really been in question: Ryan was never going to be “Cantored.” Not only are the two men different — Ryan is a more skillful politician, more popular, more grounded in the district he represents — but their challengers are different, and the political terrain is strikingly different. It doesn’t take a detailed knowledge of Virginia or Wisconsin to understand these things, only a basic familiarity with each states’ politics that any remotely serious journalist or politico can figure out. Any news source or influential figure who has been selling the idea that Ryan is likely to lose, treating Paul Nehlen as more credible than Ryan’s last primary challenger, or drawing a shallow comparison to Eric Cantor’s defeat should be considered less than reliable. They’ve done nothing to defeat Ryan. They have simply enabled a scam.
Cantor’s defeat was a surprise but not a mystery, and serious analysis would put it in context of the confusing, frustrating mess that is Virginia Republican politics. The last disastrous year of the McDonnell administration and the Cuccinelli-Bolling primary left a bitter taste. A new citizen trying to learn the ropes discovers the typical unhelpful mainstream-media coverage, a semi-conservative paper or two, and a few feuding blogs run mostly by political operative types, all claiming the “conservative” mantle and tearing the others down. I learned much about arcane feuds over party procedure, not very much about actual policy debates, and ended thoroughly disenchanted with both the “establishment” and “tea party” sides. There are some solid conservative leaders in Virginia, but the conservative political environment is muddled, divisive, and distrustful. It is a perfect environment for a revolt against an out-of-touch DC insider. Dave Brat was a local credible candidate seizing on widespread local frustrations. If the same causes led to Trump’s Virginia win, local results do not quite match up: on March 1, Marco Rubio won 35 percent to Trump’s 32 percent in the 7th congressional district. Brat’s home turf doesn’t fit any simplistic narrative.
In Wisconsin the conservatives have taken over the establishment, and the result is a serious, practical conservatism. The political debate is shaped by a powerful talk radio presence creating an electorate reasonably informed on the issues in the state. Nothing I’ve found in Virginia matches this level of analysis of state budget issues or court cases or primary elections; you can usually know if your legislator is up to something, and you can make an informed decision. Conservatives fought tough, bitter battles to elect a governor, legislature, and supreme court — and they do not believe those efforts were wasted, because they have seen meaningful results. They are proud of what they’ve achieved, and they’ve seen how hard it is to truly fight. They know that Scott Walker and Paul Ryan have extremely difficult jobs, and activists such as the Racine Tea Party founder consider Ryan one of their own and don’t appreciate someone coming from outside calling him a globalist sell-out traitor:
Here in the First [District], we know and encourage each other, work hard, push back against bad liberal policy, educate the public, and celebrate together. We tune out such labels as RINO, establishment, or party loyalists, knowing that conservatism is not one size fits all. We are a constituency that doesn’t care much for outsiders telling us how we should think, feel, or vote. Most activists here realize that Ryan is not the problem; he is part of the solution. We do our research and understand that comprehensive change doesn’t happen overnight, when we have layers of a bad overgrown government onion to peel back.
This is especially true when Ryan’s challenger has doubtful ties to the district (unlike Dave Brat), when his “small business” isn‘t a business, when he tries without Trump’s shrewdness to imitate his abrasive rhetoric. One almost senses that the 1st District is not the real audience. Those most interested in his candidacy are political PACs of the kind whose operators seem to pocket a striking percentage of their fundraising — and Paul Nehlen’s candidacy begins to appear less like a political challenge and more like a scam to raise money from people outside Wisconsin.
This is a scam that Breitbart News, Sarah Palin, and a few others have enabled. It is legitimate to talk up a long-shot challenger, but it’s dishonest to pretend there is a groundswell of support when there is truly no appetite for a revolt. It is wrong to allow a candidate to say one thing to Breitbart and another to Sly Sylvester in Madison. This is a scam perpetrated not on Wisconsin’s 1st district, but on well-meaning people throughout the country who want to protest the establishment, and have no way to know they are supporting a no-chance candidate who gets along better with liberal Madison talk-show hosts than with local Tea Partiers. Nehlen will lose badly, but like the miracle cure that heals no one but lines its inventors’ pockets, his candidacy is a successful scam.
Published in Politics
I’m not in Ryan’s district but have seen a TV presence unlike any of his previous elections. Those had pretty robust radio campaigns. Don’t know if he simply has more campaign funds at the ready as Speaker of the House or not (even with his prior leadership positions). He doesn’t appear to be taking anything for granted.
This Nehlen fellow does seem a bit sketchy. Breitbart certainly has debased themselves this past year. I’d steer clear of Tea Party Patriots and ‘SarahPAC’. Still think FreedomWorks is OK(?).
I guess my question is why aren’t PAC’s in support of Paul Ryan a scam? I take it you’re a Ryan supporter. I am no longer. Groups supporting the man third in line to President are automatically altruistic? Working for all our benefit (or constitutional/limited government) – not just theirs or Ryan’s?
I’d wholeheartedly agree with you that one of the reasons for the lack of “Base”-“Establishment” acrimony in Wisconsin is due to the fact that the Governor, Senate & Assembly have all made serious, meaningful reforms that are tangible to the residents here.
I don’t believe that to be the case at the Federal level and is one of the reasons for that increased animosity.
When Ryan wins his primary by 70+%, I’m going to be eagerly awaiting the various denunciations of the huge population of “establishment” types that live in Wisconsin’s 1st district.
Then there’s the Trump “endorsement” itself. None of these things can be squared against one another while simultaneously asserting that Ryan is an Establishment RINO Squish, Globalist, et al.
When the smoke clears from the inevitable crash and burn of Trump himself this fall, Ryan will still be there as Speaker of the House – probably the sole voice of sanity at high levels of government.
Evidently my point isn’t clear. I’m not saying all PACs are a scam, I’m saying most of the ones involved with Nehlen’s campaign seem to be. It has nothing to do with who they support and everything to do with how they spend the money. There actually was a scam PAC “supporting” Ryan a while back — they were raising money to “draft” him at the convention (not quite clear how the money was supposedly going to be spent to accomplish that.) Ryan told them to “cease and desist” and I think they shut down.
You mentioned Tea Party Patriots — have you researched how they spend their money? It’s not on the races they’re fundraising off.
I still support Ryan, yes, but that’s not really my point. When conservative media report what they want, not reality, that misleads voters, leads to more disillusionment and sense of betrayal, and damages conservative effectiveness. It is a disgrace.
Agree. But the answer is a movement that looks more like Wisconsin’s and less like Virginia’s. That doesn’t just come from the politicians, it comes from those with influence in the media, and they are failing badly.
Mark Krikorian – “….he’s [Paul Ryan] the most active and committed supporter of amnesty and increased immigration who is anywhere near leadership.”
Sorry, some people don’t want this.
Apparently, people that don’t want that are being scammed.
This has nothing to do with my post, BD. It’s not about Paul Ryan’s merits or demerits. Those who have legitimate differences with Ryan are as badly served by the phenomenon I describe as anyone.
Did you read my answer to your comment? I think I made this quite clear.
If you know the kind of candidate Nehlen is and are OK with that, if you know his realistic chances, and donate to a group that actually spends money on him, you’re not scammed.
Anyone who is donating to Tea Party Patriots thinking they’re helping unseat the Establishment RINO Speaker is being scammed. Just as anyone who donated to the quickly-defunct Committee to Draft Speaker Ryan (or something like that) thinking they were helping stop Trump was scammed.
I’ve become very suspicious of Breitbart and that crowd. Thanks for the analysis. It’s good to know what is going on. I have been wondering why this race has gotten any attention at all given Nehlen’s stats. I suspected it had something to do with the Trump supporting crowd….
Here’s a pretty thorough article on these scam PACs. (Yes, it’s Politico, but the numbers should be verifiable.) Basically, find some issue they think conservatives care about and raise money off it. If we can get enough signatures (and enough donations) we can stop Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton or some such thing. And the money doesn’t get used for any such purpose.
I saw an article from Breitbart last year claiming Ryan’s bid for the speakership was doomed because so many other people were talking about throwing their hat into the ring.
Some of the people listed I’d never heard of. The others had all said they’d withdraw if Ryan ran. Breitbart left out that detail. It’s not a news site anymore, it’s straight propaganda, at least MSNBC-level.
I didn’t really expect this to be Main Feed, truth be told.
But it does rather seem that you’re not getting the point.
People who claim they’re raising money for a specific purpose, and then use it for that purpose, are legitimate. People who claim they’re raising money for a specific purpose and then use it for something else are running a scam. This has nothing to do with whether the cause is good or bad.
There’s evidence that Nehlen’s backers are running precisely this kind of scam. Since you evidently basically agree with this, I don’t see why pointing it out angers you. If you wanted a serious challenger to Ryan, take it up with the people who pulled Nehlen out of somewhere, and the people who are lining their own pockets rather than actually doing it.
Except the now-defunct one I specifically pointed out as being a scam. I’ve seen no claims that any groups currently associating itself with Ryan is misdirecting funds. Ryan — and most people with a higher profile — have an incentive to try to stop anyone using their name as a scam.
If Right to Rise spent their money trying to get Bush elected, it was a horrible investment, not a scam. If it all went to making Mike Murphy rich, it was a scam.
It’s my understanding that the biggest funders of Right to Rise saw their money, broadly speaking, spent in the manner that they preferred. While I’m obviously not a big fan of that preference, and will think of it as a significant strike against future candidates if they have Murphy in their campaign structure, people who have dumb priorities aren’t scammed when agents acting in good faith spend money on the stupid thing the principal desires.
Leigh’s complaint is about conmen who not only promise to do unwise things, but who do not then go ahead and do those unwise things. Murphy is similar to the Nigerian who offers a good faith opportunity to get involved in a criminal enterprise that is unlikely to yield a positive return. These guys are similar to the Nigerian who pretends to offer that, but in fact merely hopes to take your cash and maybe identity and run. The former’s investors are not wise, but they are also not scammed by the incidence. The latter are both unwise and the victims of a scam.
How about the dishonestly that comes from National Review. They claim to be pro-immigration enforcement, but they support/protect anti-enforcement Republicans. They wrote an editorial endorsing John McCain in his 2010 primary, wrote one endorsing Paul Ryan for Speaker, and had the pom-poms on for Marco Rubio during the primaries. Please stop giving money to those scam artists.
Presumably they happen to think immigration isn’t the only issue in the world. They also oppose the drug war, but support politicians who support it. For what that’s worth.
More importantly, apples to oranges. To compare apples to apples, compare National Review to Breitbart. National Review might oppose Trump and Clinton, but they’re not going to pretend Evan McMullin is the true voice of the people with a real shot at the White House.
Not every wrong prediction is dishonest, of course, and that applies to some who want Nehlen to win and so think it’s going to happen. Sometimes it’s a fine line. But Breitbart’s coverage of Nehlen has crossed the line into alternative reality, and that’s inexcusable.
Thank you for an exceptionally thoughtful and precisely written piece. Reminds me of the work of a younger Barone. Have to go re-read it.
I’m also objecting to media analyses of the conman’s scheme that treat it as a plausible business venture.
And perhaps to the tendency to oversimplify and to nationalize everything. All these races are national to some degree — they affect all of us. And yet at the same time there’s something off about outside attempts to stir up something that isn’t really there. This was a group based outside the district locating a candidate barely from the district, with a staff from outside the state, funded almost exclusively from outside the state, bringing in reporters and high-profile supporters who aren’t popular locally, sweeping in news coverage and attention for a district that is going to re-elect its congressman anyway. It’s weird and leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Breitbart, Hannity, the insufferable Drudge, et al, have done so much damage in their failure to acknowledge conservative victories in the past 6 years, particularly at the state level. Beck, too. He’s a NeverTrumper, but he’s spouted the sort of “feckless GOP” hyperbole that brought us the louse.
Let’s hope all those hardworking GOP troops in WI (and MI, IN, OH, KS, etc) will keep plugging away in spite of the ingrates. Gotta be discouraging, I’d think.
I might add that part of the point of the whole article was to vent about the frustrating process of trying to figure out Virginia politics. Was hoping someone would take me up on that. I’d love to be told there’s a few insightful analytical sources I’d missed.
In Wisconsin you can get analysis, from more than one conservative perspective, of all the major issues in the state budget, for instance. In Virginia, which is naturally a less-blue state, all I could seem to find was fighting over whether we were going to have a primary or a convention, and variations on the theme. It seemed to be a proxy battle for different factions vying for control of the state Republican Party, but I could never figure out how exactly it helped either one of them. Or what exactly any faction really stood for — they all rather drove me up the wall.
Agreed. This has become a pet peeve of mine. There is no unique disease affecting Republican politicians. They’re politicians, and sometimes they act like it — welcome to democracy! If anything, they’ve done slightly above average from what one could expect from a political party, even at the congressional level — voting for Ryan’s Roadmap wasn’t a political slam-dunk, and we shouldn’t take for granted the Senate holding firm on the Court this year.
One concern of mine over Trump’s success thus far is that, since 2010, ambitious politicians thought state-level successes and serious policies were the ticket to power. Never mind.
That will have consequences.
Eric Cantor faced a primary opponent in 2012, but he won it 80-20. Hopefully, if Nehlen can’t put a scare into Ryan this year, someone else can in 2018.
It’s revisionist history to say Cantor’s defeat was not a shocking upset. It was. Cantor’s pollster, John McLaughlin, “showed Cantor with a wide lead at the end of May.”
Of course that would be revisionist history, so you’ll note I didn’t say that. I said Cantor’s defeat was “a surprise but not a mystery.” No one really saw it coming, but after paying a little closer attention one can tell pretty well what exactly happens. We know the ingredients. And so one can look at a different situation and see whether the same ingredients are there or not. And they’re just not there in Wisconsin.
Could some changes in Wisconsin politics or some leadership disasters lead to a Ryan defeat in two years? Anything’s possible. But it won’t come from similar reasons to Cantor’s, because the ingredients in the mix are different.
….. and Ryan wins with 90+% of the vote. Good call, Leigh. Congrats, Speaker Ryan and Wisconsin.
Sadly, the late vote count dipped to only 85%+. That’s been pretty consistent, with other Republicans running unopposed (RonJon, Sensenbrenner, Grothman) or getting 90%+ (Duffy). The people want change! Or, at least, 10-15% of them do. The rest appear to prefer Wisconsin’s strong, principled, conservative leadership to a bunch of conmen; the same has been true across the country, albeit to a lesser extent.
The one sad result was the reminder that Ribble is standing down because he prefers life in the private sector. Worse still, although the guy Ribble endorsed to succeed him won handily, it seems plausible that he’s not going to succeed in the general; the pros all have it as a toss-up, and they appear to be undercounting the impact of Trump’s fundraising efforts.
Badgers? What’s Gallagher like? How bummed out should I be about Wisconsin’s 8th?
I wasn’t too far off – Ryan won by merely 68%. Nehlen is a ponce.
Mad props for the specificity of your prediction.
I mean, I was wrong after all…
I have to admit I paused before hitting “post” on this one before the election.
It’s 2016, when supposedly anything could happen. I’m not on the ground. No possibility at all that I’ll end up with egg all over my face? No… it’s Wisconsin. Not happening.
I am very grateful to Southeastern Wisconsin for justifying my confidence.
Lots of things I didn’t see coming this year, but oddly enough the places I actually know didn’t surprise me one bit. Maybe that’s a key lesson for those who want to explain American politics — we’re such a big, complicated country for anyone to understand. We’re right about what we think we know, mostly. We just know less than we think we do. Most of us live in bubbles, and even those of us who bounce around don’t make it to every bubble. There is no true “voice of the people.” There are too many people for that.
I thought Nehlen would break 20%, I admit. Wasn’t expecting Ryan to beat the polls. So you were closer than I was.
Haven’t followed closely, but impression is he’s good. As far as his chances in November, no idea.