Topic: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Pat Caddell, the Fox News Contributor and Democrat pollster who engineered Jimmy Carter’s 1976 Presidential victory, blew the lid off CPAC on Thursday with a blistering attack on "racketeering" Republican consultants who play wealthy donors like "marks."

"I blame the donors who allow themselves to be played for marks. I blame the people in the grassroots for allowing themselves to be played for suckers....It's time to stop being marks. It's time to stop being suckers. It’s time for you people to get real," he told the audience that included two top Republican consultants.

Caddell stole the show as a panelist in the breakout session titled "Should We Shoot All the Consultants Now?" He spoke with a fire and passion that electrified the room. When the session began the large room was half filled, but as word spread of the fireworks going on inside, the audience streamed in. By the end, it was standing room only.

Breitbart News spoke with Caddell prior to his talk, and he promised he would deliver a "brutal critique" of the Republican establishment and its political consulting class. He did not disappoint, pulling no punches with an unyielding evisceration of a small group of Republican consultants, the Romney campaign, the Republican National Committee, and Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS Super PAC.

"When you have the Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee and the political director of the Romney campaign, and their two companies get $150 million at the end of the campaign for the 'fantastic' get-out-the-vote program...some of this borders on RICO [the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] violations," Caddell told the crowd. "It's all self dealing going on. I think it works on the RICO thing. They’re in the business of lining their pockets."

"The Republican Party," Caddell continued, "is in the grips of what I call the CLEC--the consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex." Caddell described CLEC as a self serving interconnected network of individuals and organizations interested in preserving their own power far more than they're interested in winning elections.

"Just follow the money," Caddell told a rapt audience. "It’s all there in the newspaper. The way it works is this--ever since we centralized politics in Washington, the House campaign committee and the Senate campaign committee,  they decide who they think should run. You hire these people on the accredited list [they say to candidates] otherwise we won't give you money. You hire my friend or else."

Financial corruption is a key component of the current process, according to Caddell. "There's money passing under the table on both parties. Don’t kid yourself...If you can’t see racketeering in front of you, God save you."

As a Democrat, Caddell said he could tell the truth about the failings of the Republicans 2012 campaign efforts since "I have no interest in the Republican Party." He compared Republicans unfavorably to Democrats."In my party we play to win. We play for life and death. You people play for a different kind of agenda...Your party has no problem playing the Washington Generals to the Harlem Globetrotters."

Caddell left no doubt he is not an admirer of Mitt Romney's campaign management skills. He called Romney "the worst executive I've seen" when it comes to leading a political campaign.  Romney's failure to attack Obama's Benghazi debacle during the foreign policy debate was "cravenness" that came about because his consultants told him "we don’t want to look warlike."

Caddell also said Romney failed to back his campaign with his own money when it was most needed. "My question for Romney is, you spent $45 million [of your own money] in your 2008 campaign where you didn't have a chance. Why didn't you give your campaign a loan in the spring instead of letting Obama define you?"

Romney, Caddell said, was not on top of his game when he failed to anticipate attacks based on his business career. "You didn't know Bain was coming? Ted Kennedy used it against you." Romney lost to Ted Kennedy in the 1994 Senate election in Massachusetts.

Caddell was equally caustic in his evaluation of the Republican consultants who managed Romney's campaign. "Of course this election could have been won.  It should have been won," he said. "The Romney campaign was the worst campaign in my lifetime except for ninety minutes [in the first debate] thanks to Barack Obama."

"There was a failure of strategy, a failure of tactics, a massive failure of messaging. Most of all there was a total failure of imagination." Caddell singled out Stuart Stevens, a key figure in Romney's campaign, in a particularly withering critique. "Stevens had as much business running a campaign as I do sprouting wings and flying out of this room," he said to an audience that applauded.

Caddell said that Romney inexplicably allowed Obama to define him without fighting back. If Obama had a 50% favorable rating on election day, he had an 80% chance of winning. If he had a 45% favorable rating on election day, he had a 90% chance of losing. On election day, Obama's favorable rating was 51% because, Caddell said, "Republicans failed to hold him down."

"A majority of the people wanted to repeal Obamacare, [an issue that] the Republican Party abandoned," Caddell noted. He added that "on the issue of bigger or smaller government, one-third of the people who want smaller government voted for Obama."

Caddell criticized the RNC's planned announcement on Monday of the RNC's Growth and Opportunity Project report, which he dismissed as "this whitewash...being produced at the RNC. You can not have the people who failed responsible for finding the solution."

Caddell predicted that the Republican Party, unless it became the anti-establishment, anti-Washington party, would become extinct, like the 19th century Whig Party. "These people [in the consulting-lobbying-establishment complex] are doing business for themselves. They are a part of the Washington establishment. These people don’t want to have change."
The 2010 takeover of Congress by the Republicans, Caddell said, "was not engineered by the Washington Republican establishment. They [the establishment] then took that victory and threw it away."

Caddell called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) "the Ambrose Burnside of American politics." Burnside was the commander of the Union's Army of the Potomac during the Civil War. He was dismissed by Lincoln for his inability to press his advantage against the enemy, his plodding and unimaginative strategies, and his inability to focus resources on the tactics needed for victory.

Caddell cautioned Republicans not to read too much in the 2012 results where they maintained control of the House of Representatives. "You won the House [in 2012] because of the reapportionment that came after the 2010 [Tea Party] victories," he said. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), elected in 2010, and Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), elected in 2012, had to fight this establishment at every step in the process and "claw their way" to electoral success, Caddell said.

When an audience member asked Caddell why he, a Democrat, was offering Republicans advice that would help them beat his own party, his response was met with huge applause. "I'm not a fan of Barack Obama," Caddell said. "My first allegiance is to my country. I have paid a huge price, and when I watch you people screwing up I'm offended."

Nancy Smith, a grassroots activist who co-founded an independent Virginia  group that focused on door-to-door canvassing and get-out-the-vote in the 2012 election, was effusive in her praise of Caddell's critique. "This talk by Caddell is what this entire conference should be about."

The panel was moderated by Matt Schlapp, a principal at Cove Strategies, a Republican political consulting firm. In addition to Caddell, the panel included Jeff Roe, the founder of Axiom Strategies, also a Republican political consulting firm, Morton Blackwell, a Republican National Committeeman from Virginia and founder of the Leadership Institute, and Brian Baker, founder of a Super PAC.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

yes

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Rebranding-590-LI.jpg

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Most Republicans are corrupt and don't stand for the values they claim to.

Caddell, and many Republicans, sound like Obama's whining: They cry about ineffective messaging, when it's the messengers being dishonest pieces of shit that is the problem.

Of course Republicans aren't attracting the numbers that Democrats are. Democrats are a party for babies who yearn for tyranny because they love it and the thought of not having to make any decisions for themselves. Republicans are a party that's supposed to look like an alternative but not slow down the progression toward tyranny.

They've been highly effective in their role in the coming economic collapse and tyranny.

Your party is achieving everything its leaders and sources of funding ever wanted. Congratulations.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

5 (edited by Justinian I 19-Mar-2013 06:52:28)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

The social conservatives are the single reason why the Republican party is declining. The younger generation hates them, and their base is dying off.

If the government punished pre-marital sex and further privileged marriage and Christianity, that would be a tipping point where I would support armed rebellion. And I'm sure a lot of young men would too. If you want public peace, then keep sex cheap by keeping it possible to minimize its risks.

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

>>>If the government punished pre-marital sex and further privileged marriage and Christianity, that would be a tipping point where I would support armed rebellion. And I'm sure a lot of young men would too. If you want public peace, then keep sex cheap by keeping it possible to minimize its risks.<<<


Google "palimony".


BTW I'm sure the Libertarians stand with me that if you fondle a daughter or sister without regard to marriage, then our Founders intended that you be separated from your nads, so that your sex life be free from further risks.  You'll find dining alone to be a lot cheaper too.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

7 (edited by V. Kemp 19-Mar-2013 07:21:28)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Many in our society like to pretend that they have the right to abandon any obligation at any time for any reason (all have a tyrannical and all-powerful government and welfare to fall back on, after all!). Few back then believed such nonsense.

I'm not aware of how Justinian I thinks government has any place in anyone's bedroom. I cannot think of a single time when I had sex that government had the slightest role whatsoever, in any way imaginable. I cannot fathom what oppression he thinks has been attempted.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

WTF does palimony have to do with anything?

Umm no, the founders did not believe in forced castration. And even if they did, it didn't apply to black women, who they raped for fun.

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

While you raise some legitimate points, I'm pretty sure many of them would literally have shot you if you engaged in sexual activity with their daughters without following proper form. And literally nobody would have done anything, because most of them would have agreed with the father that you were a trashy human being not desirable in society. tongue

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

10 (edited by Justinian I 19-Mar-2013 07:40:26)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Kemp,

The Family Research Council. Enough said.

That's probably a bit extreme. But just because the founders lived in a different culture, it doesn't make it right. And there's nothing trashy about pre-marital sex. A woman is not the property of her father, and all fathers who treat their daughters that way are complete scum. Secondly, there's no necessary connection between marriage, which is an institution, and love.

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Palimony is the government's way of making you pay a woman because you enjoyed her without actually providing for her.

I used to wonder why sheriffs always stopped jailhouse lynchings.  I mean, you're gonna hang the guy anyhow, right? But as I grew older and more widely read, I became aware that the phrase "strung up and abused with farm tools" had a sinister meaning -- the victim was pulled up, not dropped, and hit like a pinata with hoes and scythes, where it hurt, while he choked unconscious. Then they burnt him some.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

12 (edited by V. Kemp 19-Mar-2013 07:51:53)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Yes, but there's a [lack of a] connection between love and the problems that come with trashy people having sex: ie STDs and unwanted children. And unwanted children are a GIGANTIC problem with massive statistical correlations to poverty and crime.

While I agree that it's not government's business to legislate morality, government is necessarily involved in mediating child support matters. I can understand The Yell's repulsion at trashy young people declaring their freedom from responsibility for their actions. Illegitimate children (and the culture leading to so many) are a massive problem in America, correlating to its economic and criminal decline.

While I agree with you that it's a cultural problem without a government solution, I'm not entirely against The Yell's principles. (though not specifically regarding the genitalia. That's just nasty.) Our society lets trashy individuals get away with far too much. Law isn't necessarily a bad way to reinforce the most fundamental cultural values when they're violated.

If a man has 15 children and can't provide for one, I don't see a problem with one of those children's grandfathers taking a shovel to his face until he is dead. It's far less atrocious than the harm such a human being has done to his own children.

I've certainly entertained this rather off-topic subject enough. I agree with both of you to some extent. I'm pretty sure I've been explicitly clear how. Carry on!

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

This country was built on the core values of that guy in Sling Blade. UH HUH.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Yell,

Only in limited circumstances is palimony enforced, and I imagine its mostly used as insurance for women who sacrifice their careers to have children and/or stay home. It's only right to compensate a woman if you ditch her after she's sacrificed her career... for you.

Yeah, well, they were barbaric back then. What's your point?

15 (edited by Justinian I 19-Mar-2013 08:07:43)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Kemp,

Well, I agree that men who pressure women to have sex without protection, men who think it's cool to impregnate women, or men who treat women like cum dumpsters, are trash. But, you don't have to be married to be sexually responsible or respectful to women. Being sexually responsible is as easy as wearing condoms without a fuss, when sex is intended to be strictly recreational. If men did that, we wouldn't need this debate about abortion or publicly paid contraception for women.

16 (edited by V. Kemp 19-Mar-2013 08:13:36)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

So your position is that women are too stupid to not have sex without protection. Your position is that women are so stupid, helpless, and trashy that they NEED government to be their pimp.

Wow.

Yeah, I can't see any problem with such a view of human beings as babies being the governing philosophy of a society. I'm sure such a philosophy will make for awesome authoritarian slave states. Condoms will be free in such a society. Human beings necessarily will not be.

At the same time you say "If men did that," blaming men for being irresponsible while blaming women for being inept morons incapable of living their own lives.

You do realize that women are legally permitted to say no and defend themselves with deadly force, right? (And they should be more legally permitted to do so than they are in some areas.) You do realize that human beings are the smartest creatures on the planet (if, sometimes, not by much) and atrocities result when they're treated, raised, oppressed, and conditioned to live like apes, right? You have access to public libraries containing history texts, right?

You're arguing that government must put jimmy hats on men and be responsible for pimping women out because both sexes are too stupid to socialize and procreate without government involvement.

Again, just wow.

You're making The Yell and social conservatives sound more reasonable than I had ever considered they could be. He's just saying that they should be allowed to shoot people who act like apes. You're saying that everyone should be treated like one.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

17 (edited by Justinian I 19-Mar-2013 08:28:33)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Kemp,

Don't put words in my mouth. I said men should should go to the store and buy a box of condoms before sticking their penises inside a vagina. If men did that, it would also have the added benefit of resolving many other social controversies.

18 (edited by V. Kemp 19-Mar-2013 09:19:41)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

So you're basing your position on legal policy upon the notion that women are too inept/stupid/irresponsible to engage in safe sex by their own decision and capacity.

Nope, didn't put words in your mouth. You just confirmed it but you didn't like having it broken down into more clear language.

I don't disagree that men can be irresponsible. But, unlike you, I neither blame women's irresponsibility on men's irresponsibility, nor do I believe either to be sound legal basis for legislation.

You said:
"If men did that, we wouldn't need this debate about abortion or publicly paid contraception for women."

This is simple language. You clearly stated that we need debate about abortion and publicly funded contraception for women because men are irresponsible. This is very obviously predicated upon the notion that women are too stupid/inept/[something else] to make good decisions for themselves.

You're claiming that I "put words in [your] mouth," but your statement speaks for itself. And you certainly didn't correct me in restating that you blame men for irresponsibility because women are too stupid to be responsible.

Again, I don't disagree that men can be irresponsible. But you clearly blame men more than women, a position predicated upon the notion that men are the more intelligent/responsible sex culpable for moral/cultural/societal failures. You clearly stated (and then restated) this position, but accuse me of misrepresenting your position rather than defending it. Perhaps you are a woman, and that is why you cower away from discourse and instead try to conflate the issue?

Furthermore, you clearly call for (and called for again) law based upon the notion that women are incapable of making decisions for themselves, requiring government to provide contraception which literally costs dollars/month. You think women are so stupid/inept that they cannot afford a box or few of condoms per month, yet shy away from defending that position when questioned? It doesn't sound like you believe very strongly in your position, since you abandon it, deny you stated it, then restate it in the same post.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

19 (edited by Justinian I 19-Mar-2013 16:22:57)

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Kemp,

Yes, you are putting words in my mouth, and you ought to apologize. Secondly, nothing I said implies that women are less intelligent or responsible than men. It is an acknowledgment that women are socialized to put the needs of others above their own, the social reality that many men actively manipulate and defraud women to get laid at any cost, and that women have sex they don't want to have as a way to maintain relationships, end a man's whining, or because they feel threatened by implied threats. If you consider that as meaning women are somehow inept or less responsible, then shame on you and we have nothing further to discuss on the topic.

As an example of the social reality women put up with, sex is thought of as intercourse. Intercourse isn't usually as pleasurable to women as it is for men, yet the aggregate behavior of men is to only rub a woman's clitoris until she's wet. We call it "foreplay." And, if a woman intended to just cuddle and give the man a handjob while he rubbed her clitoris, well, she'll soon find out by society how stupid she was to "lead him on." Don't even pretend women have equal bargaining power when it comes to sex. They're doing it on men's terms most of the time. Yet, men wonder why women often lose interest in sex sometime after marriage and children. Well duh! It starts becoming a boring chore for them.

Also, it is more risky for women to have sex than men. Only women can become pregnant, and women are more likely to contract an STI by an infected partner than a man is. Thus, it is an ethical obligation for men to compensate women for that risk. And, if I had a girlfriend, yes, I would either pay for condoms or her birth control, and shame on men who believe birth control is a woman's problem.

So yes, men are more responsible for the transmission of STIs and unwanted pregnancies than women are. Women have a disadvantage at the bargaining table, largely because of our still backward culture. It has nothing to do with women's intellectual capacities. And, the debates of these other social issues, frankly only exist because men act as though they are entitled to use women's bodies, and our culture disempowers women's sexual agency.

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Warned, Justinian.

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

The Great Eye wrote:

Warned, Justinian.

Sorry. I deleted the profanity, but it was perfectly justified given his behavior.

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Just because it is an acceptable emotional response in a general social context, it doesn't mean it is accepted within the rules in this forum.  Additionally, I'm sure as hell not going to get in the habit of allowing people to swear just because someone said something rash enough to justify getting sworn at because it's a fairly subjective standard.

So no.  Now... carry on arguing politics!  big_smile

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Your entire position is predicated upon the notion that women are unable to be aware of their own socialization be reach any level of self-actualization. Nevermind that this position is based upon a massive overgeneralization--not all women are as trashy and raised to accept being disrespected as you attribute to the socialization of all women. You do understand that many women have completely different values than that, right? You do understand that many women even use men, right? It doesn't seem like you're aware that women come in any other type than those who put up with abuse and lies and give up sex in order to be with a man.

And you go on to explain your chauvinism with irrelevant references to statistical risks. Because statistical facts regarding STD transmission make any particular individual men and women incapable of responsibly deciding whether or not to have sex with someone? No, they don't.

You're just upset because I'm inspecting what your philosophy is based upon: Suppositions regarding culture which are massive overgeneralizations, and the supposition that women are uniquely incapable of being aware of themselves and their socialization and self-actualizing enough to be awake and aware and make good decisions.

Facts like pregnancy physically effecting women (whereas it doesn't effect men) and STD rates are just facts women must consider when deciding to sleep with a man, just as a man has to consider STDs, possible emotional commitment (of both partners), societal norms, etc. They're just facts that women have to be aware of. Just as there are facts men have to be aware of.

Just as awareness of one's own socialization and evaluation of what of that socialization entails (and consideration of other social values) are to be considered. Both men and women similarly evaluate the statistical health risks and the significance of having sex to interpersonal relationships/society/etc.

But women, you claim, aren't capable of being responsible for their own decisions like men are. They can't consider STD rates and pregnancy like men can! While all the facts are known to both, women are uniquely incapable of taking them under consideration and making good decisions like men can! While both men and women are socialized to view sex (and the opposite sex) in a wide variety of ways, it's women you claim who are uniquely incapable of being aware of their socialization (or altering their values) as men are!

You're clearly stating a sexist position that women aren't as capable of rational thought as men are. Rational thought allows for consideration of statistical risks and socialization. But women, you claim, aren't as capable of evaluating these things like men can. Your claim is that, because women suffer certain risks statistically more then men, women are uniquely incapable of making good decisions with an awareness of those increased risks.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

Kemp,

I'm talking about aggregate behavior. The fact that some women take advantage of a man, for example, is an exception that proves the rule.

Basically, what you are doing is manipulating my argument, which is about nurture, in to a nature argument. Which misses the point, understand? I believe women, overall, understand what their risks are just fine. The problem is that they face other risks, such as social costs, which influence their sexual decisions and shouldn't. If a woman's peers gossip and harass her for being frigid, she may decide that giving in is preferable to the continued harassment and loss of social inclusion. And, it would be a perfectly rational decision, but there are coercive conditions that shouldn't exist, understand?

Re: GOP Consultants: A Racket?

You have absolutely no empirical data to support your supposed aggregate.

Your position is entirely based upon a fictional narrative you've made up.

You say that you believe that women understand their risks just fine, then you go on to repeat that they're unable to make rational decisions regarding those risks and their lives and need help.

Tell us more about women. You're obviously an expert.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]