Friday, April 21, 2006
The Clueless NRSC
Senate Democrats Ahead in Cash Race blares the headline on a Friday Washington Post article. Then we read further and find out that is all they lead as the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee leads slightly over its Democratic counterpart and the RNC continues to overwhelm the DNC.
Still the Senate fundraising news is news because it is so out of sorts with the norms:
“In years past, through the 2002 elections, the NRSC consistently crushed the DSCC in the race for cash. In the 2001-2002 cycle, the GOP committee raised $154.4 million, compared with the Senate Democrats' $60.3 million.”
General dissatisfaction with Republicans doesn’t explain such a dramatic shift – after all, the House side continues its dominance as does the RNC. No, this reversal of fortunes is a direct response to the NRSC’s mind-bogglingly tone-deaf actions over the last few years. Begin with Arlen Spector and the NRSC’s active push against Rep. Toomey in the 2004 primary. That went well as we are now stuck with Senator Spector for another term when there was a very good chance we could have had a more reliable conservative like Pat Toomey instead (and Sen. Santorum’s problems exciting his base are also probably tied to his active primary support).
For the 2006 elections, the NRSC is pulling out all stops to get Lincoln Chafee re-elected in RI – even taking out ads to belittle his primary opponent. Lincoln Chafee is Exhibit A when describing the RINO (Republican In Name Only) phenomenon and is a constant source of irritation for conservatives around the country. But he is nominally a Republican, an incumbent and I guess traditions of Senate civility and all makes that enough for the NRSC.
Awhile ago, some bloggers had encouraged conservative Republicans to respond to NRSC fundraising letters (and if you’ve gotten one, you’ve gotten a hundred) by returning the pre-paid envelope with a simple note: N.O.M.D. – Not One More Dime. That is until the NRSC starts to recognize that we are Republicans because we are conservative. If the NRSC is simply going to throw money after any incumbent with an -R- after their name to defeat a more conservative challenger in the primaries, they can continue to expect Republicans not to trust them with their money.
Still the Senate fundraising news is news because it is so out of sorts with the norms:
“In years past, through the 2002 elections, the NRSC consistently crushed the DSCC in the race for cash. In the 2001-2002 cycle, the GOP committee raised $154.4 million, compared with the Senate Democrats' $60.3 million.”
General dissatisfaction with Republicans doesn’t explain such a dramatic shift – after all, the House side continues its dominance as does the RNC. No, this reversal of fortunes is a direct response to the NRSC’s mind-bogglingly tone-deaf actions over the last few years. Begin with Arlen Spector and the NRSC’s active push against Rep. Toomey in the 2004 primary. That went well as we are now stuck with Senator Spector for another term when there was a very good chance we could have had a more reliable conservative like Pat Toomey instead (and Sen. Santorum’s problems exciting his base are also probably tied to his active primary support).
For the 2006 elections, the NRSC is pulling out all stops to get Lincoln Chafee re-elected in RI – even taking out ads to belittle his primary opponent. Lincoln Chafee is Exhibit A when describing the RINO (Republican In Name Only) phenomenon and is a constant source of irritation for conservatives around the country. But he is nominally a Republican, an incumbent and I guess traditions of Senate civility and all makes that enough for the NRSC.
Awhile ago, some bloggers had encouraged conservative Republicans to respond to NRSC fundraising letters (and if you’ve gotten one, you’ve gotten a hundred) by returning the pre-paid envelope with a simple note: N.O.M.D. – Not One More Dime. That is until the NRSC starts to recognize that we are Republicans because we are conservative. If the NRSC is simply going to throw money after any incumbent with an -R- after their name to defeat a more conservative challenger in the primaries, they can continue to expect Republicans not to trust them with their money.
Comments:
<< Home
Presumably the theory where Chafee is concerned that it is better to have a fairweather friend than an implaccable foe. Chafee may not be the most reliable Republican in the Senate, but surely it is understood that a more conservative primary opponent is unlikely to win the general election, and I fail to see how our interests are served by starting the election automatically one seat down.
Even if Chafee ultimately votes against the next SCOTUS nominee, for example, he is likely to vote for cloture, while a Senator X (D-RI) might well vote against both.
I'm agnostic where Chafee is concerned. I have no particular affection for him, but didn't Reagan once say that you don't keep a majority by looking for people to refuse to work with?
Even if Chafee ultimately votes against the next SCOTUS nominee, for example, he is likely to vote for cloture, while a Senator X (D-RI) might well vote against both.
I'm agnostic where Chafee is concerned. I have no particular affection for him, but didn't Reagan once say that you don't keep a majority by looking for people to refuse to work with?
I don't that once the primaries are over, the NRSC should be supporting the Republican nominee but the aggressive support of Chafee is simply hurting the Republican cause nationwide. should the Senate revert back to a bare GOP majority, does anyone doubt that Chafee wouldn't pull a Jeffords and switch sides. I know the NRSC thinks it's being pragmatic but I believe that often being principled is the best pragmatism. this seems to me to be a classic penny-wise, pound-foolish strategy
I don't see why anyone would think that he would. He never has before; when Jeffords went out the door, by most accounts, Snowe and Chafee did everything short of handcuffing him to Trent Lott to keep him on board. Now, certainly I can see the argument that in a closely divided Senate, moderates like Snowe, Chafee and Jeffords suddenly wield a disproportionate amount of power over the GOP's agenda, but it sometimes seems as though there are those that are not only willing, but in fact anxious to cut off our nose to spite our face, that is, by beating moderates at the primaries, and thus losing those seats in the general. Personally, I would rather we got a modified form of our agenda through in a form acceptable to Snowe and Chafee than that the Democrats got their agenda through because we handed them Maine and Rhode Island on a plate. It just doesn't seem like sound tactics or strategy to avoid recognizing that it's better to have a moderate Republican than any Democrat.
Post a Comment
<< Home
