Revenge of the (Other) Tea Party?

 
690px-Ken_Cuccinelli_by_Gage_Skidmore

Ken Cuccinelli by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0.

There were always two Tea Parties. To generalize, the first was older, WASPier, and more anti-Left than classically liberal. They hated Obama, but had little interest in pointy-headed constitutional study. The second was younger, more diverse, and more explicitly ideological. They were quick to roll their eyes at the “Hands off my Medicare!” rhetoric associated with the movement. The wonder of it isn’t that these groups eventually found their champions in Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. It’s that they found champions who so perfectly embodied these stereotypes.

This brings us to a fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal brought to Ricochet’s attention yesterday by Tory War Writer. A GOP faction is trying to re-write the GOP delegate rules to stave off future Donald Trumps. Its leaders say they’re not trying to deny Trump the nomination. They expect him to win on the first ballot. Heading the effort is former Virginia Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli:

The Cruz loyalists will take their cues in Cleveland from Mr. Cuccinelli; Mr. Cruz has given no indication that he will lead his troops. The senator’s last conversation with his delegates was weeks ago when he thanked them for their support—and urged them to attend the convention.

Mr. Cuccinelli is preparing to seek changes that would incentivize states to restrict primaries to Republican Party members only, no longer award delegates from congressional districts held by Democrats, and prohibit lobbyists from being members of the RNC.

He said he expects to face resistance on the rules committee from Mr. Trump’s supporters, though he anticipates there will be enough Cruz supporters to ensure the Texas senator’s backers are heard.

“We’re starting with a substantial cadre of conservative delegates, but they’re going to have to be convinced that the changes are good changes,” Mr. Cuccinelli said. “Some people are going to be sheep, they’re going to say, ‘It’s my job to do whatever the presumptive nominee wants me to do.’ Thankfully those are a distinct minority.”

Penalizing states that allow independents and Democrats to vote in Republican primaries is hardly a new issue for the GOP—it was a proposal in the party’s autopsy report after the 2012 election.

But Mr. Trump made explicit appeals to, and won support from, independents and registered Democrats, so restricting their access to primaries is seen as a move to slow a Trump-like candidate in the future.

“They want to be sure the party stays conservative,” said Steve Munisteri, a rules committee delegate from Texas who works for the RNC. “Not only the platform, but also that it has a process that gives a conservative candidate” assurances they are “not disadvantaged by the process.”

Though Cruz and Cuccinelli are hardly twins, the overlap is striking. Both are in their mid-forties, and neither are WASPs. (Cruz is an Evangelical whose father is Cuban; Cuccinelli is a traditionalist Catholic from an Italian-American family.) Both had early success in state politics at the start of the Tea Party era. They made names for themselves as full-spectrum conservatives: They were both whip-smart in the courtroom, and they both enjoyed a mutually contemptuous relationship with the GOP establishment. Both suffered major setbacks at the hands of opponents thought by everyone to be eminently beatable. Favored to win the Virginia gubernatorial election, Cuccinelli lost to Terry McAuliffe.* Cruz’s last-conservative-standing status toppled in mere weeks — although in fairness to Cruz, few thought he would get that far at all.

If the Journal piece is any indication, the Cruz-Cuccinelli faction won’t be kissing Trump’s ring. Indeed, we might soon find the Right in an outright schism.

* Update: I completely misread the polling on this. This is incorrect.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 50 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Paul A. Rahe Member
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    Good for them.

    • #1
  2. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    This has been a story in Texas for several weeks. Cruz’s team pivoted to this strategy as soon as he suspended his campaign. The rules committee and platform committee will be heavily influenced by is efforts and will continue to lay bare the divisions in the Republican Party while simultaneously highlighting Trump’s lack of conservative credibility.

    I will climb out on the conspiratorial limb here and say Trump does not win on the first ballot unless Cruz supports that and it isn’t clear that he will. Trump has the requisite number of pledged delegates. However, not all of those delegates are influenced by Trump and many were/are Cruz supporters.

    What is the penalty for a delegate to not vote the commitment on the first ballot? Not invited back next time? Trump will ultimately win the nomination, but I am not sure it is going to be confetti raining down after the first ballot.

    • #2
  3. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    BrentB67: What is the penalty for a delegate to not vote the commitment on the first ballot? Not invited back next time?

    I always assumed it was something like this:

    • #3
  4. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    What Trump expects in Cleveland:

    NEW YORK,SEPTEMBER 2, 2004:  (NO TIME Mag. U.S.NEWS, or U.S. TABLOID SALES).   Vice President and Mrs. Dick Cheney are covered with confetti on the final night of the Republican National Convention in Madison Square Garden, September 2, 2004 in New York City. (Photo by David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images)

    What is more likely:

    baltimore-riots-protest-e1430314491259

    • #4
  5. Brad2971 Member
    Brad2971
    @

    This “strategy” will get quickly shut down, and by folks from Mississippi and South Carolina who’ve long depended on open primary voting to advance the GOP in those states.

    People keep bringing up the need to “close” the primary/caucus in such a way that it always ends up with a “conservative” candidate. These same people keep wondering why nothing ever comes of such wishes.

    Sorry to burst your “riot” bubble, Brent.

    • #5
  6. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    I am sure the R delegates have lost their spine. Based on what I see here on Ricochet, principles no longer matter: stopping Hillary is such a focus that people will overlook anything and everything else.

    I see Cruz setting the stage for a successful run next time. And if he spends the next 4 years in the Senate advancing truly conservative legislation, then I think his odds improve.

    The question is whether or not it really matters – whether the country can survive a further descent under Clump.

    • #6
  7. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    I am in favor of the Cruz/Cuccinelli effort to close more primaries. Republicans should choose the Republican nominee, not random independents and Democrats.

    However, although I would’ve been thrilled for Cruz to beat out Trump this year, I don’t think Ted is a great candidate for the future. He has too many style issues to appeal to a broad base of voters.

    Hillary will probably be the weakest candidates the Dems nominate in the next 50 years.  We could’ve easily beaten her by nominating a good candidate.  Although Trump may beat her (I’d give him about a 20% chance at this point) his victory would be no victory for conservatives.

    • #7
  8. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    iWe:I am sure the R delegates have lost their spine. Based on what I see here on Ricochet, principles no longer matter: stopping Hillary is such a focus that people will overlook anything and everything else.

    I see Cruz setting the stage for a successful run next time. And if he spends the next 4 years in the Senate advancing truly conservative legislation, then I think his odds improve.

    The question is whether or not it really matters – whether the country can survive a further descent under Clump.

    Good points. If C2 influence the rules Trump could easily be primaried and possibly lose in 2020.

    • #8
  9. Tom Riehl Member
    Tom Riehl
    @

    iWe:I am sure the R delegates have lost their spine. Based on what I see here on Ricochet, principles no longer matter: stopping Hillary is such a focus that people will overlook anything and everything else.

    I see Cruz setting the stage for a successful run next time. And if he spends the next 4 years in the Senate advancing truly conservative legislation, then I think his odds improve.

    The question is whether or not it really matters – whether the country can survive a further descent under Clump.

    Maybe you have inverted the logic here?  Stopping Hillary, in my opinion, is the most important principled position to hold now, and denying that may mean that some are uninformed or in denial about how abhorrent and dangerous she is.  All other considerations related to principle are peripheral, at best.

    Reality can be harsh, but we have to assess where we are now, and hopefully use our energy to finally finish her and her cronies off, and help our standard bearer.  Do you really imagine that our descent could be on a flatter slope with Clinton?

    I like Cruz and hope to see him again in four years on the national stage, but he’s suffered a TKO for this cycle.

    • #9
  10. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    iWe: Based on what I see here on Ricochet, principles no longer matter: stopping Hillary is such a focus that people will overlook anything and everything else.

    This is an unfair description. People who prioritize stopping Clinton do so because of their principles. The difference between you and them is that they are considering their principles not only in terms of being represented but in being opposed. If Trump is the weaker opposition to those principles, then voting for him is arguably the best available way to defend them.

    If you object to the strategy of choosing the lesser of two evils, fine. But don’t belittle your neighbors for struggling to see how embracing impotence in this election honors their conservative principles.

    • #10
  11. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Frozen Chosen: However, although I would’ve been thrilled for Cruz to beat out Trump this year, I don’t think Ted is a great candidate for the future. He has too many style issues to appeal to a broad base of voters.

    I’ve seen highly-driven super-nerds eventually mellow into normal people well into their 50s. OK, not normal people, but much more normal and less off-putting than they were before. Doesn’t mean it’s likely, just not impossible.

    There’d also be an awkward history to live down, another impediment, but again, not necessarily insurmountable. If Cruz retains his ambition, he should be willing to at least try. Letting normal people know you relate to them can be learned, though some of us learn slower than others.

    • #11
  12. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: Favored to win the Virginia gubernatorial election, Cuccinelli lost to Terry McAuliffe.

    Favored by whom? McAuliffe was the favorite and was expected to coast to victory.  Cuccinelli almost took him in an upset but was starved for funding by the national GOP.

    • #12
  13. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Basil Fawlty:

    Favored by whom? McAuliffe was the favorite and was expected to coast to victory. Cuccinelli almost took him in an upset but was starved for funding by the national GOP.

    I completely misread the polling on that; correcting.

    • #13
  14. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    iWe: principles no longer matter: stopping Hillary is such a focus that people will overlook anything and everything else.

    which ignores the fact that stopping Hillary is a principled stand.

    Many of us have accepted the pragmatic reality that when confronted with the choice between a candidate that opposes every principle we hold, and a candidate who opposes 75% of the principles we hold, it is a principled stand to go for the 25%

    • #14
  15. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    PHenry:

    iWe: principles no longer matter: stopping Hillary is such a focus that people will overlook anything and everything else.

    which ignores the fact that stopping Hillary is a principled stand.

    Many of us have accepted the pragmatic reality that when confronted with the choice between a candidate that opposes every principle we hold, and a candidate who opposes 75% of the principles we hold, it is a principled stand to go for the 25%

    I can be, yes, though it depends on what’s in the 75% and 25%, and how passionate you and the other person are about them.

    • #15
  16. Frozen Chosen Inactive
    Frozen Chosen
    @FrozenChosen

    PHenry: stopping Hillary is a principled stand.

    Yes, but if we stop Hillary who will stop Trump?

    • #16
  17. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    PHenry: which ignores the fact that stopping Hillary is a principled stand.

    I yield that if you truly believe Hillary is worse for the country than Trump, then your support of Donald Trump can be principled.

    I do not have any confidence that a Trump presidency would be better for the founding principles of this country than a Hillary presidency (for reasons that have been well hashed out elsewhere). Which is why, for the sake of those ideals that I hold dear, I am a #NeverClumper.

    And I apologize for impugning the rest of y’all.

    • #17
  18. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: There were always two Tea Parties. To generalize, the first was older, WASPier, and more anti-Left than classically liberal. They hated Obama, but had little interest in pointy-headed constitutional study. The second was younger, more diverse, and more explicitly ideological. They were quick to roll their eyes at the “Hands off my Medicare!” rhetoric associated with the movement. The wonder of it isn’t that these groups eventually found their champions in Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. It’s that they found champions who so perfectly embodied these stereotypes.

    I’m not sure I agree… or understand.

    I agree that there were two waves in the Tea Party movement. It began with Rick Santelli’s rant and focused on government’s fiscal/economic irresponsibility. It morphed when Glenn Beck prompted studies of history and a focus to revive Constitutional restraints.

    But Cruz is more ideological and Trump is more focused on financial concerns.

    While I know FiCons both on and beyond Ricochet who support Trump enthusiastically, I don’t think that is the base of his support. More often, his fans seem ideology-minded but frustrated by the GOP’s inefficacy or disinterest. Aside from his pivotal attention to immigration standards, Trump doesn’t seem as ideological as his supporters.

    At least in the end, when all other options were eliminated, Cruz better represented policy wonks. That too is ironic since, despite being a lawyer, he focuses speeches on principles.

    • #18
  19. ToryWarWriter Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    In the end Trump is one guy.  He will by necessity surround himself by members of the party we support.  Sure many of them will be on the Liberal end of the spectrum, but  they still are Republicans.

    A Hillary win is not just her.  Its a whole political establishment of people around her who are Democrats.

    Trump will have to fill his positions.  And he is going to have to fill them with people like Giuliani and Christie.  Who I trust a heck of a lot more than whoever Hillary appoints.

    Thanks for the hat tip Tom Myer.

    This post is about internal party matters though, and sadly in my experience not enough of the Richotti are made up of people like myself who are party guys as much as political people.  Which is why this post has devolved once again into not related topics.

    • #19
  20. Nick Stuart Inactive
    Nick Stuart
    @NickStuart

    Parties’ primaries closed to non-party members. Good idea. Not sure how they’ll get open primary states to go along.

    Not award delegates from Democrat-held congressional districts? Really? Why should those voters be disenfranchised?

    Micro-tweaking the rules will be just another pooch-swiving time-waster.

    • #20
  21. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    I consider Cuccinelli and Cruz my first choice for leadership of the conservative cause, but I don’t know that their proposed changes would have prevented Trump.  I generally agree with closed primaries, but I originally thought that Trumps support base was about 50% crossover in open primaries, then once the closed primaries kicked in, he won most of them as well.  So I don’t see how closed primaries would have prevented Trump.

    I also don’t really get the  ‘ no longer award delegates from congressional districts held by Democrats, ‘ thing.  That just disenfranchises and alienates those Republicans in Democrat majority districts.  If it is a closed primary, why are they suspect?  It seems like a way to shrink the party base, not expand conservatism.

    I can’t imagine that many people will support a candidate once they know that they have no input as to who that candidate is.  Part of the reason parties get the support they do for candidates that are necessarily imperfect for most voters is party loyalty, which is lost if those voters are shut out of the process.

    • #21
  22. BD Member
    BD
    @

    If you weren’t moving to change the primary rules after John McCain won the nomination in 2008, you aren’t advocating changing them now in order to protect conservatism.

    • #22
  23. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    BD:

    If you weren’t moving to change the primary rules after John McCain won the nomination in 2008, you aren’t advocating changing them now in order to protect conservatism.

    Except John McCain was not running on a give-me-the-power-and-I-will-fix-everything platform.

    And, moreover, the party became more conservative after McCain (no thanks to him, though).

    Then Trump happened.

    • #23
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I have a different idea. How about we figure out over the next few years what the heck conservatism and republicans are first. Then why don’t we take an in-depth look at the rules of the convention and throw out 2/3 of them. Then figure out what rules will meet the objectives of a new Republican party.

    • #24
  25. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Susan Quinn:I have a different idea. How about we figure out over the next few years what the heck conservatism and republicans are first. Then why don’t we take an in-depth look at the rules of the convention and throw out 2/3 of them. Then figure out what rules will meet the objectives of a new Republican party.

    I am not sure there are enough years between now and monetary Armageddon to solve those 2 riddles.

    Great point though.

    • #25
  26. Tom Meyer, Ed. Member
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Aaron Miller:I agree that there were two waves in the Tea Party movement. It began with Rick Santelli’s rant and focused on government’s fiscal/economic irresponsibility. It morphed when Glenn Beck prompted studies of history and a focus to revive Constitutional restraints.

    The Beck/Santelli dynamic is pretty similar to the Cruz/Trump one. Heck, it’s probably just saying the same thing another way.

    Aaron Miller:But Cruz is more ideological and Trump is more focused on financial concerns.

    Agreed on the former. On the latter, I think you’re giving Trump way too much credit.

    Aaron Miller:While I know FiCons both on and beyond Ricochet who support Trump enthusiastically, I don’t think that is the base of his support.

    Okay, I’m seeing our disagreement better here. I’m not saying that Trump is the FiCon candidate; rather, that he’s more emblematic of folks who generally aren’t terribly politically engaged but who joined the Tea Party because they were so opposed to Obama. Generally speaking, folks who (like Trump) are more anti-left than classically liberal.

    (Again, I’m stereotyping; this doesn’t apply to all Trump supporters and, by its nature, very few of those here).

    Aaron Miller:More often, his fans seem ideology-minded but frustrated by the GOP’s inefficacy or disinterest. Aside from his pivotal attention to immigration standards, Trump doesn’t seem as ideological as his supporters.

    Among those on Ricochet, yes. In general, I believe Trump has done relatively well with less-ideological GOP voters than with ideological ones.

    • #26
  27. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    In addition to going to strictly closed primaries, I actually think our nomination process would benefit from a switch to a single transferable vote and a ballot asking ranked preference.

    • #27
  28. Petty Boozswha Inactive
    Petty Boozswha
    @PettyBoozswha

    The main reason for the existence of political parties was to distribute patronage jobs and contracts – that reason was taken away by the “reforms” of the Great Society programs and public employee unions. If we restrict our appeal to closed primaries and disenfranchise Dem districts we will just accelerate the sclerosis we’re already seeing. The next Trump won’t need the shell of a party, the internet and outside groups will be sufficient.

    If Cuccinelli wants to organize the Cruz delegates into a force for something worthwhile, why doesn’t he try to rewrite the platform on issues like abolishing the filibuster [really the incumbent protection nonaggression pact] or propose Glenn Reynolds’ revolving door tax on lobbyists.

    • #28
  29. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Salvatore Padula:In addition to going to strictly closed primaries, I actually think our nomination process would benefit from a switch to a single transferable vote and a ballot asking ranked preference.

    I disagree on two grounds:

    It’s Friday and I am argumentive.

    I think the ranked preference concept attracts more people to the primary. I imagine someone telling John Kasich that he isn’t going to win anywhere outside of Ohio and he responds: “yeah, but I will be the 3rd choice in a lot of places, they love me.”

    • #29
  30. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    BrentB67:

    Salvatore Padula:In addition to going to strictly closed primaries, I actually think our nomination process would benefit from a switch to a single transferable vote and a ballot asking ranked preference.

    I disagree on two grounds:

    It’s Friday and I am argumentive.

    I think the ranked preference concept attracts more people to the primary. I imagine someone telling John Kasich that he isn’t going to win anywhere outside of Ohio and he responds: “yeah, but I will be the 3rd choice in a lot of places, they love me.”

    The point of a ranked preference would be to transfer the vote to a competitive candidate. It would have the opposite effect of making 3rd seem decent.

    It would mean the winner would be someone a majority were relatively happy with, as opposed to a winner that makes a plurality ecstatic and a disunited major dissatisfied.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.