Yes, the Republicans benefited from corporate donors and other political entities that offered up critical financial support in the run up to 2012. But, even the New York Times is forced to admit that on balance the Democrats raised more money. So what was the decisive factor? Shady “outside organizations” and anonymous donors? How bout ideology? The GOP’s renewed commitment to constitutional limited government struck a chord with Tea Party activists and average citizens who are rightly concerned about Team Obama’s big government schemes.
Republican operatives should be credited and recognized for their aggressive fundraising efforts, shrewd communication tactics and for cultivating an alliance with “outside interests” and corporate benefactors. But party’s renewed commitment to constitutional limited government had very little bearing on the 2010 election returns.
This is the central message of a New York Times post-election report that somersaults away from acknowledging the powerful influence Tea Party activists had on independent voters. While it is evident from the election returns and opinions polls that the public favors tighter restraints on federal power, the newspaper takes care to sidestep any discussion of ideological. Instead, the report peddles alternative explanations for the 2010 results that fixate on corporate interests that supposedly have impure motives and shady political entities tied with Karl Rove, the former political advisor President George W. Bush.
Popularity: 7% [?]