GOP Establishment Rewards MS Race-Baiter


Republican National Committeeman Henry Barbour is not only not ashamed of the Alinsky/Obama tactics he deployed in Mississippi’s controversial U.S. Senate primary, apparently so is the Republican National Committee itself.

When questioned about the repugnant race-baiting Barbour used to steal a U.S. Senate primary from the conservative base, Barbour told The Hill newspaper in Washington, D.C. “I don’t have a problem with a word that’s in” those race-baiting ads criticized by a host of respected conservative leaders across the country.

It shouldn’t surprise any knowledgeable grassroots activist someone from the Barbour family tree has no problem going scorched earth on the conservative base, but what should sadden us is how the RNC has chosen to respond to this scandal.

The RNC refused to even bring to the floor the censure of Barbour submitted by Missouri Republican Party Chairman Ed Martin. There were several Twitter accounts of Barbour receiving a “standing ovation” by a group of delegates at the RNC’s recent meeting. And Barbour was just elected to the prestigious committee that will oversee GOP presidential debates during the upcoming 2016 primary cycle.

The latest developments in this story are why I no longer lobby my audience to “vote Republican no matter what.” While I’d still like to see what a real second party could do before undertaking the generational effort necessary to create a third one, in good conscience I can’t try to insist people that are fed up with being lied to and scammed overlook such fecklessness and fall in line anyway. Not to mention given treacherous stories like this I doubt many of you would listen to me anyway even if I tried.

Besides, if the GOP doesn’t care about driving its base away, why should I?

(Steve Deace is a nationally-syndicated talk show host and also the author of the new book “Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again.” You can “like” him on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.) 

  • colsooonscoorner

    We need to drive the Establishment away. They’ve abused their base. Their attitude is Rule of Law, what’s that, Money in the pocket is better, ‘n bein’ the power broker, is all they care about.

    • freedom Agnes

      I stopped donating to the RNC and suggest all conservatives do the same. I write a note on their letter for donations and let them know until they become true to their principles and policies, they will never get a penny from me. I now donate to true conservative organizations and to the Senate and House Conservative Funds. If everyone did this, the RNC might get a message!

      • colsooonscoorner

        I am inclined to think they are too set in their ways to pay attention. In other words just plain HARD HEADED!

      • gavinwca


  • AP Besser, Jr.

    Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking. Obviously Barbour and RNC, this character trait is sorely lacking…and you wonder why Tea Party exists?

  • bd1143bc

    Vote Libertarian.

  • Brad Bryant

    RUN BEN RUN.ORG is the site to check out Dr. Ben Carson for President in 2016.

  • disqus_WfKYUkPmxv

    I’m out. I’m done with the Republicans. I’m not going to stick around and be a part of the RINO-infested Grand Old Party.

  • William H Smith

    Let the Chris McDaniel claims of voting irregularities and voter fraud go to the courts. He will have file something very different from what was in the notebook produced when he announced the challenge last week. He will have to have facts and evidence. If the courts find for McDaniel, fine. Have a redo of the primary or whatever remedy the court requires. But, if, as I think likely, the court does not find in his favor, let’s see what McDaniel and his followers do. Will they accept the result or will they then accuse the courts of being corrupt?

    • rivahmitch

      So, you endorse a result that leaves the ballot with only Democommunist or a clone… Obviously, you’re on the wrong list. Last time I looked “the courts” were a part of the now totally corrupt government. Whatever their conclusion may be in the instant, it will be meaningless. It becomes time for the people to again instill fear into the government and it’s minions or to accept the clear alternative that Jefferson identified when people fear the government. As for me, I stand with Patrick Henry. Semper Fi!

      • William H Smith

        Once paranoia sets in, it knows no bounds.

  • rivahmitch

    I’ll support worthy individuals but do not and never again will any of the major Repugs groups (NRc, NRCC, NRSC, etc.) receive a dime. Better to but ammunition t defend against them as well as the Democommunists. When officers betrayed troops in ‘Nam we had a quaint custom to get rid of them. We need to institute the equivalent solution here. Semper Fi!

    • William H Smith

      Well, you are proving my point about the paranoia.

      • eeee_ac1933

        William, your original question was valid, but your further comments are distasteful. There is a direct connection between the race-baiting adverts funded by Henry Barbour’s PAC, and the raw funds which were donated to him and/or to team Cochran. 35 of 45 sitting repub senators gave money, thousands of bucks each, to influence a repub-vs-repub primary contest in favor of the incumbent. The NRSC also was involved in directly funded some adverts in MS during the runoff; so far as I know the exact contents of those particular adverts have not yet been revealed.

        The RNC shares staffers with the NRSC (about 33% of NRSC staffers were former RNC staffers), and of course, the RNC has refused to take any stance either for or against race-baiting as a tactic. To his credit, Senator Portman went on record saying it is wrong to use race as a wedge-issue, and that he did not know how his donations would be used, but that was his personal apology, not an official NRSC action. See also, Ted Cruz, who was one of the few who did not donate, but enhanced his reputation even further by his post-runoff commentary.

        It is not paranoid to say that the NRSC spent tons of time, money, and staffer vitriol attacking the tea-challengers in the repub primaries during 2014. It is not paranoid to say that the RNC tacitly endorsed that behavior. Donating only to candidates that one personally supports, or to PACs that share one’s own values, is the only rational response; why donate to a group that paid to call you racist, eh? The NRCC may or may not have issues, but on general principle, unless the NRCC officially denounces race-baiting and primary-meddling, they are unlikely to get donations either going forward.

        As for your original question, yes, if the lawsuit ends up coming short of a provably fraudulent runoff … and if Cochran apologizes for the people who used *his* name on their nasty tactics, evidence of which HAS come to light during the lawsuit… then I would be able to support Cochran come November. On the other hand, if the lawsuit is dismissed for “taking too long” (when the stonewalling was not the fault of McDaniel), or dismissed for failing to file in the correct county, or name the correct defendant, or some other technical grounds (as opposed to being overturned because the runoff is proven to be fairly run), then my stance would depend on the exact nature of the grounds.

        As for yourself, if it turns out that fraud *is* proven, and the runoff-result is overturned, will you be supporting McDaniel in the redo-runoff, and then in the November election? I stipulate that McDaniel will apologize for any errors he made, or even, that his supporters made (e.g. calls for second-amendment-revolution regardless of the court outcome is a very wrong stance).

        • William H Smith

          Of course the RNC and the NRSC support incumbernts, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. I don’t get all the outrage about that. Why would they dump the incumbents who are in place for challengers? Futher, in this election cycle they are looking to win the Senate and have bo look at the questions: Who can be elected? Once elected who will help get something done and not just make more campaign speeches? Cochran is the obvious choice on all counts. If the Court finds on any legal grounds, including timeliness, that the primary resutls stand, I will supprot Cochran in the general election. If the Court orders a new primary I will support Cochran. If by Court order or by the results of a new primary election, McDaniel is te nominee, I will support McDaniel, though I think he will be a positon-stake-outer and speech maker and probably continue his attacks on the Republican establishment. It would be worth it for his vote to organize the Senate. I think it unlikely the Court will overturn the primary either by declaring McDaniel the winner or by orderinga new primary. McDaniel has got himself so far out there that he has to puruse this long shot, because, if he does not win, he is done for far as Republican poliics in MS are concerned. When he goes back to the MS Sentate in ’15 Tate Reeves will probably cut him off at the knees. He will cry foul but he will have brought this all on himself. Finally I am somewhat baffled you find some of my comments distasteful, while you say nothing about the kind of nutty stuff to which I replied.

          • eeee_ac1933

            Fair enough; we are mostly on the same page, except on a couple of points: whether the NRSC should be neutral in primaries, and whether getting things done is the primary measure of senatorial worth. (And we do agree about the court-question although I did not say so explicitly before; sorry.)

            On point one, I strongly disagree that the RNC and NRSC and friends should support incumbents in the repub-PRIMARY phase, although of course I know they always supported repub incums … against the dems in the general election contest! My understanding was that even county chairs and state chairs, not just the national party folks, were supposed to stay neutral in their rhetoric during the repub primary, and let the voters pick nominees.

            I do realize it has always been a dirty secret that county chairs and state chairs do not ACTUALLY stay neutral, but I have never heard of the RNC picking their preferred nominees in advance (except maybe in jungle-primary states like Louisiana where there is no separation between the primary and the November election). As to why the NRSC would “dump” the incum, in favor of the challenger… is the will of the voters in the state in question not enough, somehow? The national groups should keep neutral until after the primaries; anything else is a bit of a racket.

            As to the larger goal, we agree, it is important to win the senate. McDaniel would vote against Reid. So would Cochran. McDaniel would win in PVI+9 Mississippi. So would Cochran. (You assert that McDaniel, had he won on 6/3, would have lost to Childers, but polling-data does not back that up.) The only difference, then, that I see, is what will happen when the 2014 repub senator from Mississippi got to DC.

            For you, it is more important to “get things done” aka pass bills in bipartisan fashion (repubs will have small majorities in the house and senate — but not enough to override an Obama veto — thus in order to “get things done” compromise with the dems would be required). There are senators like McCain/Graham/Lamar/Cochran who often get things done, achieving small wins in the short term, but they do so by cutting deals with Reid/Pelosi/Obama, often with extremely poor long-term results.

            Compromise on mechanism is okay, when implementing laws that are within the proper scope of the federal government; it is the “compromises” on principle, on the question of what the proper role of the federal government is, which kill me. (Any compromise between the constitutionalist idea that the feds should have no role whatsoever in XYZ, and the contrary stance that the feds should 100% control XYZ nationwide, leads to 50% control… the next “compromise” leads to 75% control… and soon we reach 100% anti-constitutionalist statutes.) Negotiation must never become partial surrender.

            For me, just as for Reagan, in this present crisis of confidence, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. I do not want a senator who will “get things done”. I want a senator who will stand up for what is morally right, such as Cruz/Rand/Lee/Scott. It is immoral for the country to live beyond our means, because every dollar in debt we splurge on now, is two dollars that our kids will have to pay back, or four dollars our grandkids, or worse. We have to balance the budget, by cutting spending, not by raising taxes (Elizabeth Warren and her “eat the rich” stance is both immoral and flat out unworkable).

            As for the McDaniel v Cochran lawsuit, we will find out whether it gets overturned on a technicality (1959 precedent plus reading section 923 in para materia with section 921 plus assertion that section 923 of 2014 is substantially identical to section 3144 of 1959). Personally, I hope it goes to trial, so evidence is actually considered; anything less will just generate conspiracy-theories among many folks, albeit not for myself. I’ll accept what McGehee says, as justice broad or narrow, one way or the other. As for the future of McDaniel in 2015 and 2016 elections, and the future of Henry Barbour in the 2016 national committeeman election, I’ll let that play out as it may.

            p.s. My sincere apologies to you, for not complaining about what rivahmitch was saying. While I would characterize it as foolishly hyperbolic, it is probably not actually nutty in the medical sense; rivahmitch is just angry and frustrated to the point of saying foolish things, I would say. The analogy rivahmitch made with defunding as akin to fragging is particularly unforgiveable, and should not have been said. But the cite to Patrick Henry is pretty telling: rivahmitch is not just an anti-Hamiltonian, but actually an anti-Constutionalist, of the sort who would prefer unfettered minarchism to rule-of-law constitutionalism. There was not much point in my trying to convince rivahmitch of anything, in other words, which is why I replied to you instead. But I should have at least noted my disagreement with rivahmitch’s ideas, for the record.

            Anyways, although I agree with rivahmitch that funding the RNC and NRSC is counterproductive, since they are actively and aggressively trying to ‘crush’ repub candidates I support, the solution is not the 2nd amendment. But to me, that is just a pragmatic decision about how to best implement campaign-funding efforts; it is more work to learn about candidates, and donate direct to them, for tea and liberTea folks, but it is smarter than trusting the national groups to use my funds as I would wish. (Same goes for donating to Henry Barbour’s PAC, money which was then mis-used to fund Ronnie Crudup’s PAC; seems likely that Rob Portman will be more careful where he donates in the future!)

            The correct order for using boxes in the defense of liberty is the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. We are still entirely within the first two categories, and very far from the fourth (at least 3 very bad decades from now before we have a totalitarian government… by my rough estimation). McDaniel is using the “jury box” option with his court-challenge, although in practice I believe the decision will be made by judge McGehee without an actual jury. I see this court-challenge as a misnomer; 2014 is not the time for widespread civil disobedience in the style of Thoreau (aka the jury box approach), let alone widespread calls to arms in the style of Patrick Henry (aka the ammo box approach).

  • Justan Montana

    I like TEA anyway.
    Nuff said.

  • jinxed13

    I was in elementary school when Barry Goldwater threw his hat in the ring to run as President, and despite not being old enough to vote then, I am still a “Goldwater Republican.” Having said that, I refuse to donate to the RNC, but I will donate to individual candidates who are conservative. The reason the Democrats are currently in power, and will most likely remain in power, is because they rally behind anyone their party chooses and their other candidates drop out so that the Democrat candidate of choice has a better chance of winning. If the Dems chose to run one of the mice that infest the White House for political office (since the ones who currently infest the White House aren’t eligible to run again), all of the Dems, including other candidates for the same office, would drop out and work to elect the chosen candidate. Republican candidates, instead, remain running for office until they have successfully siphoned votes away from the RNC chosen candidate, then they drop out at the last minute after they’ve done their damage and successfully guaranteed a Democrat candidate win. The RNC insists on running RINOs, who aren’t much different politically than are the Democrats, so a RINO win isn’t much different in impact on the Nation than would be a Democrat win. For example, I respect John McCain for his service to America and the admirable way he conducted himself as a prisoner of war during VietNam, but having said that, those are hardly reasons to vote for him, nor were they reasons to choose him as a Presidential candidate. He’s a devout RINO who votes more often with Democrats, and I believe that the only reason he ever ran for Senator as a Republican was because the Democrats didn’t choose him for their candidate. We have RINOs who are voting for amnesty for illegals, then we wonder why blacks won’t vote Republican despite Lincoln’s freeing the slaves, and the GOP being avid supporters of the civil rights movement while Democrats attempted to keep blacks down — amnesty will damage black Americans more than any other racial group, and it will damage Latinos who came into this country legally and those who got amnesty decades ago, more that it will damage whites, Native Americans, and Asians. What we don’t need is to financially contribute to the election of more RINOs and more Washington DC “good old boys.”

    • William H Smith

      You’re a Goldwater Repbulican? So you support Ford over Reagan because you want a consensus candidate. You label conservatives to your right “kooks.” You are for gay rights and gays in the military. You are for strong environmental laws. You oppose the Religious Right Wnen Falwell opposes Sandra Day O’Connor you say Falwell should kick himself in the ass. You want to legalize medical marijuanna. You criticize the right wing insurgency in the Republican Party in AZ. To sum up: “In 1996, he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?” I In other words, you are not a Tea Partier and you would not support Chris McDaniel. A Goldwater Republican is by Chris McDaniel’s standards a RINO, and part of the establishment.

  • William H Smith

    So now that the trial judge has dismissed the McDaniel suit may we move on to the general election? Or must McDaniel continue to campaign and raise funds?