Eric Cantor defeated

[baldeagle]

Cantor was recently supported by the Tea Party; I guess some Tea Party folks don't stick with friends. That's a sure fire way not to have any political impact. What sin did Majority Leader Cantor commit to loose their support?

Chas.

His sin was straying from his principles. If you look at his voting record, he gradually became more liberal until he was one of the most liberal Republicans in the House. That will not endear you with Tea Party folks who believe principle is paramount and party is secondary. Immigration was an issue (Cantor was all over the map on that but consistently support "Dream Act" type immigration), but it was not the only one. The Tea Party didn't abandon Cantor. Cantor abandoned the Tea Party. That should be a wake up call for all Republicans. The days of wishy-washy go-along-to-get-along Republicans are coming to an end. Get a spine, stand up for the Constitution and quit kowtowing to the liberals.

[anygunanywhere]

This morning Laura Ingraham stated that one reason such a broad base voted against Cantor was that the middle and poor class have seen such an erosion in their purchasing power and no progress on the economy that they are angry about the continued push for amnesty immigration reform. There are serious concerns about the recent influx of illegals.

We in Texas should be extremelly concerned because they are pouring into our state.

Anygunanywhere

[mojo84]

It appears to me he strayed from some of the principles which won him Tea Party support. I believe it is a wake up call that if one strays their support is subject to go away. Since we don't have term limits for these career politicians, the only thing we have is the vote in order to hold them accountable.

Many old line GOP members are willing to go along to get along to make sure they get re-elected or retain their powerful positions. I think this is an indication the GOP continuing to compromise principle is no longer acceptable. Giving blanket amnesty to people that have broken the law to enter our country illegally is not acceptable. Neither is releasing illegals that have been convicted of crimes from prison before they serve their terms. The fact our congress is not taking a more aggressive role in reigning in this rogue president and his administration is enough to be voted out of office in my opinion. The leadership of the GOP and Congress is a good place to start holding our elected officials accountable.

[anygunanywhere]

If we were to hold elected officials accountable a large number of them would be in prison.

Anygunanywhere

[mojo84]

Yep

[mojo84]

An interesting read. Seems like he showed up with good intentions and then became part of the establishment. All the more reason we need to work towards electing citizen representatives rather than power hungry greedy career politicians. When the citizen representatives change and become part of the problem, they need to go.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/06/10/why- ... ntor-lost/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

Cantor was recently supported by the Tea Party; I guess some Tea Party folks don't stick with friends. That's a sure fire way not to have any political impact. What sin did Majority Leader Cantor commit to loose their support?

Chas.

His sin was straying from his principles. If you look at his voting record, he gradually became more liberal until he was one of the most liberal Republicans in the House. That will not endear you with Tea Party folks who believe principle is paramount and party is secondary. Immigration was an issue (Cantor was all over the map on that but consistently support "Dream Act" type immigration), but it was not the only one. The Tea Party didn't abandon Cantor. Cantor abandoned the Tea Party. That should be a wake up call for all Republicans. The days of wishy-washy go-along-to-get-along Republicans are coming to an end. Get a spine, stand up for the Constitution and quit kowtowing to the liberals.

You've given only one specific and it wasn't all that specific. Give us concrete votes, not sound bites. That's the problem with politics on both sides of the isle; people make generalizations without any substance. "Staying from his principles," "'Dream Act' type immigration," mean nothing. Give specifics.

When any group or organization adopts a policy of abandoning elected officials who vote in support of their ideas simply because someone else looks prettier or talks a better game, then that group/organization will marginalize itself and will not be able to impact legislation. I must confess I know very little about Cantor, but that usually means he hasn't done anything bad.

Chas.

[Cedar Park Dad]

His sin was straying from his principles. .

Wait, politicians have principles? I thought absence of that was a job requirement.

[mojo84]

Apparently there is something that has people up upset. Cantor spent around $5 million on his campaign to his opponent's approximately $120,000.

[baldeagle]

Cantor was recently supported by the Tea Party; I guess some Tea Party folks don't stick with friends. That's a sure fire way not to have any political impact. What sin did Majority Leader Cantor commit to loose their support?

Chas.

His sin was straying from his principles. If you look at his voting record, he gradually became more liberal until he was one of the most liberal Republicans in the House. That will not endear you with Tea Party folks who believe principle is paramount and party is secondary. Immigration was an issue (Cantor was all over the map on that but consistently support "Dream Act" type immigration), but it was not the only one. The Tea Party didn't abandon Cantor. Cantor abandoned the Tea Party. That should be a wake up call for all Republicans. The days of wishy-washy go-along-to-get-along Republicans are coming to an end. Get a spine, stand up for the Constitution and quit kowtowing to the liberals.

You've given only one specific and it wasn't all that specific. Give us concrete votes, not sound bites. That's the problem with politics on both sides of the isle; people make generalizations without any substance. "Staying from his principles," "'Dream Act' type immigration," mean nothing. Give specifics.

When any group or organization adopts a policy of abandoning elected officials who vote in support of their ideas simply because someone else looks prettier or talks a better game, then that group/organization will marginalize itself and will not be able to impact legislation. I must confess I know very little about Cantor, but that usually means he hasn't done anything bad.

Chas.

Start with the Heritage.org scorecard: http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/members" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then look at his voting record: http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/ ... er/C001046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Govtrack has him perilously close to Democrat territory, a very bad place to be for someone who claims to support Tea Party ideals: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/member ... tor/400060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; HIs missed votes score is higher than average for all Congress critters.

He voted for No Child Left Behind. He voted for TARP. He voted for Medicare expansion. http://www.cato.org/blog/tea-party-disc ... l-spending" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Less than a year ago he was described as drafting legislation to "provide a path to citizenship for immigrant children who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents" http://thehill.com/homenews/house/31059 ... -dream-act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In an economy where millions of American citizens have stopped even bothering to look for work, promoting amnesty for people who have broken the law doesn't go over well with voters.

I hope this clarifies the issues some.

[RoyGBiv]

Here's a pretty good review that debunks much of the current guesswork and wild theories.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... r-edition/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cantor made several mistakes, ignoring the challenge, then turning bitterly negative in the closing weeks. It was a sour message compared to those of sweetly successful incumbents like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who emphasized the commonalities he shared with his rivals and asked for mercy on disagreements. Graham won easily last night as an avowed moderate in a very conservative state. Cantor wasn’t a straight shooter. He attended a retreat for an anti-tea party group led by former Rep. Steve LaTourette this spring and was clearly part of an effort to beat back the conservative insurgency. But as his own race appeared to grow more competitive, Cantor suddenly shifted. He deep-sixed immigration and vowed no action this year. But then, after his pollsters erroneously declared him safe, Cantor flipped back the other way with approving words for legalizations for limited groups of illegal immigrants. Veering and insincere-sounding, Cantor wrongly believed that his clout, incumbency and money would be enough.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Cantor was recently supported by the Tea Party; I guess some Tea Party folks don't stick with friends. That's a sure fire way not to have any political impact. What sin did Majority Leader Cantor commit to loose their support?

Chas.

His sin was straying from his principles. If you look at his voting record, he gradually became more liberal until he was one of the most liberal Republicans in the House. That will not endear you with Tea Party folks who believe principle is paramount and party is secondary. Immigration was an issue (Cantor was all over the map on that but consistently support "Dream Act" type immigration), but it was not the only one. The Tea Party didn't abandon Cantor. Cantor abandoned the Tea Party. That should be a wake up call for all Republicans. The days of wishy-washy go-along-to-get-along Republicans are coming to an end. Get a spine, stand up for the Constitution and quit kowtowing to the liberals.

You've given only one specific and it wasn't all that specific. Give us concrete votes, not sound bites. That's the problem with politics on both sides of the isle; people make generalizations without any substance. "Staying from his principles," "'Dream Act' type immigration," mean nothing. Give specifics.

When any group or organization adopts a policy of abandoning elected officials who vote in support of their ideas simply because someone else looks prettier or talks a better game, then that group/organization will marginalize itself and will not be able to impact legislation. I must confess I know very little about Cantor, but that usually means he hasn't done anything bad.

Chas.

Start with the Heritage.org scorecard: http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/members" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then look at his voting record: http://www.heritageactionscorecard.com/ ... er/C001046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Govtrack has him perilously close to Democrat territory, a very bad place to be for someone who claims to support Tea Party ideals: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/member ... tor/400060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; HIs missed votes score is higher than average for all Congress critters.

He voted for No Child Left Behind. He voted for TARP. He voted for Medicare expansion. http://www.cato.org/blog/tea-party-disc ... l-spending" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Less than a year ago he was described as drafting legislation to "provide a path to citizenship for immigrant children who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents" http://thehill.com/homenews/house/31059 ... -dream-act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In an economy where millions of American citizens have stopped even bothering to look for work, promoting amnesty for people who have broken the law doesn't go over well with voters.

I hope this clarifies the issues some.

Yes, it does give some specifics, although I don't agree with everything stated in the links.

My argument isn't that Cantor should not have lost. My contention is that voting for or against someone simply because the "Tea Party" supports or opposes them is risky business. I would define myself as a Tea Party Republican, but I also realize that many who identify themselves are members of the Tea Party movement are actually Libertarians who realize they can't win under that banner. I agree with very few of the Libertarian position on issues and I don't want them ruining the Tea Party movement.

Chas.

[talltex]

I'll offer a different scenario: I think it's very possible that Brat's unexpected support was a result of who and what he is, rather than anything to do with the Tea Party. All the political analysts and experts gave him no chance because he was a "largely unknown, professor of economics and ethics". I think THAT is the very reason he garnered so much support from the voters. The voters were given a choice between a typical career politician, one who promises much and delivers little...who spends most of his time currying favor from the other legislators to advance his own political ambitions and precious little time representing the interests of his constituents, and someone they perceived as a "non-politician" who actually has at least formal education in economics and ethics...which makes him the "anti-political insider". They chose to back someone who IS NOT part of "the system". I understand that feeling. Congress, at both the Federal and State levels, have continually refused to implement term limits on themselves, because it will severely weaken the power and authority the Parties hold over the legislators. I've had several family members in the legislature and they have all stated that you can go there with the best intentions, but you will quickly be informed by the "powers that be" (Party chairmen, Majority and Minority leaders) that you WILL support certain bills and party positions or you WILL NOT find any party support in the next election cycle, and if you refuse on something they deem really important, they'll support and finance an opposition candidate to run against you in the next primary. That is more than enough, to keep anyone aspiring to a long political career, in line. Term limits would drastically undermine that authority. I suspect there are many voters like myself out there, that are just sick and tired of hearing the same promises over and over from both the Dems and Reps every election and then seeing that regardless of who wins, nothing fundamental ever changes, because the status quo is what the parties want to maintain.

[JSThane]

My contention is that voting for or against someone simply because the "Tea Party" supports or opposes them is risky business. I would define myself as a Tea Party Republican, but I also realize that many who identify themselves are members of the Tea Party movement are actually Libertarians who realize they can't win under that banner. I agree with very few of the Libertarian position on issues and I don't want them ruining the Tea Party movement.

The following are my observations. Others may interpret the political scene differently.

I would contend that there is a huge difference between libertarians and the Libertarian Party, and that the "Tea Party" IS a "small-l" libertarian movement, not an off-shoot of the political party. We "Tea Partiers" disagree on a great many things, from drugs to gay marriage to foreign policy to religion. What links us together, however, is a recognition that there are a great many things the government, or at least the federal government, should NOT be doing, yet is doing anyway, and there are a few things the federal government is supposed to be doing, but refuses to. The Tea Party IS the "libertarian movement." It is the movement of "leave us alone, and do your job." It is the movement of "I answer to whatever God or gods I choose to believe in, not to some petty bureaucrat." It is the movement of "Let me live my life in peace and liberty, with the freedom to succeed or fail based on my own merits and work."

The Libertarian Party, however, is a political party that, last I checked, is best known for its pro-drugs, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-open-borders, and international isolationism stances. In short, the hippie movement got older and decided they didn't like paying taxes. I suspect the only reason they got any traction at all in prior elections is their appeal to juvenile-minded voters who want free sex and dope, or with virulent anti-military advocates who're honest enough to admit that Democrats are just as prone (if not more so) to resort to military force than Republicans.

The Democrat Party is and has been driving anyone away who is not to the left of Noam Chomsky.

The Republican Party is torn at the moment, pulled three ways. There is the "moral" wing that is mainly recognized by its fierce anti-drug and anti-abortion policies, with anti-homosexuality as a distant third. There is the "liberal" wing that has become so accustomed to "going along to get along" and to being the minority party that it really doesn't HAVE any policies other than "be in the opposition and minimize the damage, somehow," and frankly looks forward to the weekly "bipartisan" cocktail parties. And then there is the libertarian (small-l) wing, that demands a smaller and less intrusive government, strictly in line with the Constitution, even when the intrusion is in support of a moral position they may agree with (drugs, gays, etc).

The problem with people like Cantor, as well as the Paul Ryans, Marco Rubios, and any other one person we "pin our hopes on," is that they get co-opted out of the small-l libertarian movement and into one of the first two camps. People who want to be left alone don't really HAVE "key issues," and so don't fit neatly into a voter bloc to which a candidate can appeal in election after election. It has been, historically, kinda hard to win an election by promising, "Elect me, and I will actively prevent the government from furthering pet causes," or "Elect me, and I'll make sure the government does nothing for (or to) you." However, promising to help "win the war on drugs," expand social programs, and/or "be bipartisan" appeals to certain voting blocs. The idealist can very quickly become disillusioned by this. Add in the natural human desire to be known, to have your name attached to something, and you wind up with politicians searching for pet causes, like amnesty. Or "preserving Medicare." Or any other you-name-it cause.

Now, when you take THAT, and add in the fact that the Old Guard, who are already in either the Go-Along camp, or the Pet-Cause camp (or a foot in both), are the ones with all the power internal to the party, and do not take kindly to interlopers who threaten their Pet Causes, it gets very difficult for any newcomer to actually get elected, or stay elected, without joining the Old Guard, and helping to protect the institution of the same. I would venture that it's a toss-up as to whether Ted Cruz, for example, is hated more by Harry Reid, or by John Boehner. And yet, if we're to going to fix the problems of governmental overreach, intrusion, and corruption, we HAVE to have these idealistic newcomers, uncorrupted and unco-opted. We have to have people "outside the networks."

Cantor may not have been one of the biggest problems in the House, but neither was he a solution. He's "gone along" too often, compromised too often, and made himself a part of the Old Guard culture. He may not have been a driving force behind the problems of the Republican party, but neither has he attempted to be part of the solution. It's a bit of a "lead, follow, or get off the road" thing.

Personally, I'm in favor of kicking out every incumbent during each primary, unless they can point to where they actually shrank government. I don't vote for friends so they can have a pretty desk with a nametag on it and a chance to be on C-SPAN. In fact, I don't think I could BE friends with an elected official, and any friend who got elected probably wouldn't stay my friend if they managed to keep their seat.

Yes, I know that's not "how the game is played." I'm fed up with it being a game in the first place, and I want to vote out the players, and elect someone who'll quit trying to use me as their own personal Monopoly piece.

THAT is the essence of the Tea Party, and that is why Cantor lost his primary. His former constituents are sending a message to the Congress as a whole.

[anygunanywhere]

Thank you JS Thane for your eloquent post.

Anygunanywhere