Showing posts with label NRSC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRSC. Show all posts

Thursday, November 22, 2012

What is the "electable" candidate?

Every primary I hear a lot of talk from amateur hour pundits and other figures talk about how primary voters need to vote for the so called "electable" candidate. Often, electable means the pet candidate of the NRSC. Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth, called this logic out in an editorial.

In the wake of some missed opportunities to pick up seats in the U.S. Senate over the last few cycles, one tactical change floated by the GOP establishment is that the party apparatus and its affiliated Super PACs should play a more influential role in primaries to make sure that more “electable” candidates are nominated.
It is hard to imagine a bigger mistake.
I hope Jerry Moran cleans house with the administrative portion of NRSC. I'm not impressed with their record the past six years, especially.  Marco Rubio told primary voters in 2010 to pick a better establishment.

Chocola continues.

First, let’s review the Senate races where the Republicans nominated so-called “electable” establishment candidates in 2012: Denny Rehberg in Montana, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Heather Wilson in New Mexico, George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin. All were establishment favorites because they were all “electable.” All of them lost.

Berg and Thompson were the two biggest disappointments. Unfortunately Mourdock also lost, and he was Chocola's guy. He lost for the same reason Akin did. Dumbass comments.

Second, let’s review the recent history of the Republican establishment’s choices of candidates in high-profile Republican primaries against fiscal conservatives.
The names that come to mind include Dede Scozzafava, Arlen Specter, and Charlie Crist. All were supported by the Republican Party establishment as the most “electable” in their respective races. These stellar “Republican” candidates ended up either endorsing the Democratic candidate in the race or became Democrats themselves.

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/how-gop-can-avoid-next-todd-akin/#storylink=cpy

That's the big reason for a lot of major dislike these days from the base towards liberals that the media calls moderate (Bush is an actual moderate). People like Charlie Crist. These same turkeys that tell us to be team players pull this crap sometimes even if their candidate is nominated, like in 2008 and even this year in 2012. I haven't forgotten, Irish grudges and all. If I took one for the team to help Romney in the general election these same moderates and liberals need to take one for the team when a conservative is nominates. I respect Rudy Giuliani even though I don't agree with him. Rick Snyder on the other hand can go perform an unnatural act on himself.

There is a clear solution. If the GOP wants to involve itself in primaries again it should focus on supporting candidates who clearly believe in and can articulate what the Republican Party says it stands for, limited government and economic freedom. Not candidates who simply adopt whatever positions make them the most “electable.”
One of the biggest silver linings of the 2012 election is the deep Republican bench. In addition to rising stars endorsed by the Club for Growth PAC like Senators Toomey, Rubio, Cruz, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake, Ron Johnson and Rand Paul, a whole new generation of governors who support economic freedom stand ready in the wings.

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/how-gop-can-avoid-next-todd-akin/#storylink=cpy

I generally agree, but good philosophy is only one part of what is electable.When I look at an electable candidate, I look at the following:

1. Does the candidate have a history of winning tough areas?

Pat Toomey won in the Leigh Valley several times and then won statewide in Pennsylvania. He's a conservative. Heather Wilson, more moderate, won in Albuquerque. She lost this year statewide in New Mexico, but I thought she wasn't a bad candidate.

2. Does the candidate have a tendency of putting his/her foot in the mouth?

Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell. George Allen in 2006. This has nothing to do with liberal, moderate, or conservative. This is about being smart and controlling yourself. 

3. Is the candidate talked into running, or does he/she want the job?

This I thought about after this year. If you told me last year that Mr Welfare Reform, Tommy Thompson was going to lose to a Madison progressive far leftist, I'd laugh in your face. I would not have gotten the last laugh. The NRSC loves candidates who are ex=governors or establishmeent congressmen who aren't very controversial. Pete Hoekstra, Tommy Thompson, and Mike Bouchard in 2006 ran like they were talked into running. I'm not sure they really wanted the job, or at least campaign for it. Maybe Hoekstra and Bouchard (good guys, but weren't the best candidates) wouldn't have won anyway, but I didn't expect them to lost by 15-20pts. I learned a lot this year about the dangers of candidates without the fire in the belly.


4. Does the candidate have a strong base and can get that group to the polls?


Pat Toomey. Marco Rubio. Tom Coburn as a congressman winning a very conservadem seat. Hoeven as governor in North Dakota. Justin Amash and the libertarians in his district.  There are people that go to elections just to vote FOR those people more than simply generic R. 

5. Does the candidate appeal to independents? That doesn't mean "moderate" which can sometimes lead to double flanking and race skipping. A reputation of integrity, competence, and principles gain independent votes. Mike Rogers has even won Ingham County at times, even though he's a social conservative. Pat Toomey ran better than "moderates" Romney and McCain in the liberal Philly suburbs. He won Bucks County (so did Romney, although Bush lost it twice). Rubio swept Florida easily.


6. Can the candidate raise money? At least enough to win.

That doesn't mean the candidate needs to outspend the opponent, but the candidate needs to be competitive so we don't get Stabenow vs Hoekstra/Bouchard situations.

I've come to believe that philosophy doesn't mean as much to electability as tone, competence, self-control, work ethic, and message. Liberal Fred Upton wins a swing district, as does Tim Walberg and Mike Rogers. Upton isn't the jerk that Joe Schwarz is. Walberg isn't Todd Akin. Mike Pence is possibly more conservative than Mourdock. Kelly Ayotte was supported by a lot of the grass roots as well as establishment and won a swing state.

Amateur hour pundits believe than candidates need to be "moderate" to win, and they can't be further from the truth. Results show things are a lot more complicated than the ability for most beltway so called journalists to understand. 

In order to win, I think you need a specific plan (part of Romney's problem - too many platitudes and flips), be able to execute it (Orca didn't help), not be a jerk, work hard and campaign like you want the job. There's electable tea party candidates and unelectable tea party candidates. There's electable establishment candidates and unelectable establishment candidates.



Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/how-gop-can-avoid-next-todd-akin/#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/how-gop-can-avoid-next-todd-
akin/#storylink=cpy<

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Reason Number #1000001 not to donate to the NRSC

Oftentimes people rip the "establishment" or "leadership" and I sometimes am one of the ones that do so. In reality there are multiple establishments, not all of them alike. The "establishment" isn't always bad, but sometimes it is and then some. Even not all "Washington" establishment is alike.

Just as there are thousands of tea parties which are independent of one another, there are thousands of Republican Parties. In Michigan alone, you have at least 101 republican parties (State, County, District, Caucus) along with several dozens of Republican clubs (North Oakland, Greater Oakland are two prominent ones nearby) that are technically PACs but function as more of a political party than some official parties. Those clubs are often in large counties on a micro level.

From a strategy elections standpoint, some of the biggest ones are caucus. We unfortunately have no say on caucus, unlike County, State (and I'm undecided on state leadership), District, and even RNC indirectly. In Michigan, there's a house and state senate caucus, and nationally, we have the NRCC and NRSC. Democrats have their own equivalent.

The NRSC screwed things up bad...again. They reappointed Texas Senator John Cornyn, unanimously. I hope Cornyn learned some lessons from 2008 and changes up their executive directors a bit. Yes, there were some gains, but that was despite the NRSC. Let's look at the history of the NRSC under Cornyn's tenure.

1. NRSC endorses Arlen Specter in primary. Specter defected to the democrats despite all of the establishment support. Specter was unacceptable in both parties to Pennsylvania voters. They then were monkeying around in the primary some more because Pat Toomey could not win. Oh wait. Toomey won. If they understood history, Toomey won three times in a Gore/Kerry seat. He represented Leigh Valley area. That's Bethlehem and Allentown. Heavily union, steel areas Northeast of Philly. That's not exactly Lancaster or York (Which are about as Republican as Livingston County in Michigan). Toomey won there in his senate race, and even picked up Bucks County in Suburban Philly, along with all the Suburban Pittsburgh area. The NRSC wasted money and time supporting Specter and needed to stay out.

2. NRSC endorsed Charlie Crist. This one is worse. Crist wasn't even an incumbent. He defected as well after Florida primary voters would not accept him for his economic leftism, and got his ass kicked in the general, unable to break 30%. Crist won four counties, none over 50%. Meek won one. Rubio "couldn't win" either. Oh wait, he did. Rubio won all but five counties, and came within one percent of winning Palm Beach County of all places. He won the "lower Alabama" area as well as majority minority and democrat leaning Miami-Dade county. He even won Alachua County, Gainesville....the Ann Arbor of Florida. The NRSC wasted early money and needed to stay out.

3. They got involved in the Lisa Murkowski/Joe Miller primary. Looks like Murkowski won the general and got her revenge, but who knows what she's going to do now. The primary NRSC ads damaged Miller in the general.

4. Dumbass comments. Christine O'Donnell was a bad candidate who won the primary. I knew that, but the NRSC didn't have to announce they were backing out. They needed to shut the hell up and not say anything. That allowed the democrats to take their money out and spend it elsewhere, like Colorado.

If you go back further pre-Cornyn, the NRSC also got involved in Lincoln Chafee's primary against a moderate. Chafee won the primary, and lost the general. Chafee also later endorsed Obama. The NRSC ran negative ads against the other republican.

I didn't even get to the "unofficial support" these clowns did.

These primary fights not only pick favorites and breed resentment, but they also take resources away from the general election. It's the NRSC's job to support the republican nominee, not get involved in primaries. That money supporting Crist and Specter could have gone elsewhere. That support could have gone to Colorado, Washington, and West Virginia instead, where we had three close losses with winnable candidates. The money blown in California could have gone there too.

Leadership like that shouldn't get rewarded.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Leave it to the US Senate establishment to be the problem

The senate has long been the home of failures. Bob Corker, Trent Lott, Lindsay Graham, Schumer, Boxer, Biden, Obama, Levin, Stabenow. I can go down the list. If you want to see bad policy become worse, wait for it to go through the senate. The senate saved the bailout and bridges to nowhere. The senate gave us the mandate in health care. The senate saved the gun ban from 93. We have some conservatives going into the senate now, and Trent Lott's pitching a fit. K-Street. Pork king Lott. Our 1994 gains were limited because of Lott's "Big Government Conservatism."

Speaking of Lott, remember this quote.


Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said in an interview. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

No, we need to tell Lott to stay retired.  Let's examine what happened while he was Majority Leader.
1996 - Gained two seats. (55)
1998 - No change (three major defeats down south preventing gains)
2000 - Lost five seats

Now this guy's on K-Street. The same K-Street establishment that lead to our ass-kicking in 2006/2008 and frankly lead us to Obama. Lott's at it again.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott put it plainly: “We did not nominate our strongest candidates.”

Had Republicans run Castle in Delaware and establishment favorites Sue Lowden in Nevada and Jane Norton in Colorado, Lott said, Tuesday would have turned out different.

“With those three we would have won and been sitting at 50 [senators],” he observed.

One, your don't know that. Two, other non establishment candidates won. Rand Paul in Kentucky. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. Marco Rubio won big in Florida. Mike Lee in Utah. Alaska is still up in the air. Three, some establishment candidates lost this year too. Carly Fiorina. Four, the NRSC and establishment backbiting that went on caused extreme harm. Sharron Angle, Ken Buck (who also had to deal with a governor campaign clustermuck), Christine O'Donnell, and Marco Rubio had to deal with double flank by dunderheads who made the general election that much tougher for them. Angle and O'Donnell wern't my preferred candidates, but that's not my decision to make. That's the choice of the voters of that state, not the establishment. Compare that to New Hampshire, where Kelly Ayotte was supported by all sides (and won with 60%).

Besides that, who knows if they are going to do a Arlen Specter or Charlie Crist. Both of them bolted the party, despite having full establishment support in the primary. Specter went democrat and lost. Crist went independent and couldn't get 30%. Rubio and Toomey won despite the establishment. If the candidates are not acceptable to voters, they lose. That goes for primary and general races, alike. O'Donnell and Angle were bad candidates, more for their mouths than anything else. Rubio was an excellent candidate. Fiorina wasn't that good of candidate.

Speaking of NRSC, there needs to be new leadership there. Cornyn (someone primary him) and especially his executive directors need to be sent home. Primary Graham as well. I wrote this in September, particularly about the O'Donnell race (and I did not support O'Donnell).

I think the pundits are missing the point with the O'Donnell win and I think this still goes way beyond "tea party" and "moderate" and "liberal" and "conservative reasons." This stuff has been stewing since 2006, caught fire in 2008, and exploded with the stimulus and Obamacare. Spending and big government is one big issue, but the other one is simply attitude.

I was a family member's house last night and saw this headline on the TV. "NRSC won't spend money on this race." That's the problem that so many of the conservative base AND independents have, beyond any ideology. First off, even if the NRSC isn't going to donate money, they need to shut the hell up. Don't give away your game plan. Don't automatically write off competitive seats like a pussycat. Nobody respect that, from any ideology. Where a lot of the disconnect is though between the base, the tea party, Washington, and establishments is this attitude. Who works for who. The establishment and DC leadership thinks they are in charge, they pick their candidates, they appoint party leadership, and that they lead the way and that the base should follow their lead, no matter what. Grass roots vs professionalism, and they believe they are the professionals. That works when everyone is on the same page. When it isn't, then it doesn't work. Neither the base or the independents like being dictated to.
THAT is the big issue. These primaries are for the voters of the state. They aren't for Washington DC. I don't like coronations here in state. I despise them when they come from out of state. I didn't like being told to vote for Don Nugent at convention. I didn't. I'm even more less apt to follow a coronation attempt from Washington.

The difference today than in the past is this. Conservative independents (Where most tea party activists fall) and the base republicans no longer are accepting dictates from party leadership. In the minds of most, they FUBARed the situation. A lot of this is aimed at NRSC and to a lesser extent RNC (Steele's foot in mouth). NRSC tried to run off candidates in primaries in favor of RINO's. Castle isn't a RINO. He's a liberal. Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter were RINO's. Now they are democrats. Lisa Murkowski is showing RINO tendancies and may run as a write in. Lincoln Chafee is a RINO who endorsed Obama. Joe Schwarz was a RINO on the house side and backed Mark Schauer. Why the hell are these idiots getting support from leadership IN PRIMARIES. Leadership needs to stay out of primaries and let the state electorate make the decision in the primary. It's leadership's job to elect republicans, not the coronation of their candidates.

In this election season, the majority of time the leadership has dictated a candidate, that candidate was defeated in the primary. That ought to send a message to DC, but DC doesn't get it at all. Charlie Crist quit and ran as a so called independent. Arlen Specter switched primaries and lost anyway. Bob Bennett's bailout votes cost him his job. Bob Inglis lost. Parker Griffith lost. Castle lost. Their preferred primary candidates in Colorado, Nevada, and Kentucky lost too. In Wisconsin, California, and Washington, their preferred candidate won. In New Hampshire (close to call), their candidate is winning barring recount. In Wisconsin, Washington, and New Hampshire, the preferred candidate is acceptable to many of the base as well.

The best thing the NRSC can do is stay neutral until the primary is over. If they do good work, the establishment candidates will get more support. If not, they won't. If O'Donnell and Angle were such bad candidates for the general as Lott says, what does that say about the people they beat? Don't vote for Cap and Trade. Don't be a big spender. If you follow that, you may win.

I ended with this.

1. Leadership needs to stay out of primaries and stop running their mouths. Primaries are decided by state voters, not leadership. Save your money, time, and mouths for the general election.

2. The base that does not like the "coronation" candidate needs to pick someone better who can win. Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio were very good choices. Others aren't.

3. Losers in primaries need to suck it up and take it for the team. One BIG reason a lot of so called establishment "moderates" are almost despised more than democrats are due to people like Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Joe Schwarz, Wayne Gilchrist, Lincoln Chafee, and many so called conservative pundits, Bush administration people (Dowd, McKinnon) and columists in the 2008 election. These assholes (not all moderates, but those I named) got their candidate who they demanded elected (McCain) in the primary, and then go out and endorse a leftist like Obama in the general. Many have LONG memories on that.

4. Pick a better establishment. Marco Rubio said this in his primary against Crist. This is most important. In the end, the establishment is picked by apathy. Party leadership (outside of caucus - NRSC, NRCC, etc) is elected. It's elected by activists. We need to do our homework and make sure the right people are elected. For me it is those that have their ear to the ground and at the same time are strong competent individuals who are good administrators and want to win in the fall.

Did DC learn its lesson? I hope so, but I doubt it.

DC hasn't seemed to learn its lesson. If it wants to win the senate, it better, or the dems will take control of all branches of government. These clowns were worse than Bush from 02-08. I haven't seen a lot of improvement. That better change, ASAP.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

O'Donnell wins Delaware Primary - mixed views on this

I thought Castle was going to pull it off in Delaware, but I was wrong about it. If I lived in Delaware, I wouldn't care for either of my two choices (O'Donnell for non-ideological reasons like frivolous damages claims in a lawsuit) but would have done a one time only vote for liberal republican Castle for pragmatic reasons. Delaware is a social liberal state with heavy Philadelphia area influence.

I think the pundits are missing the point with the O'Donnell win and I think this still goes way beyond "tea party" and "moderate" and "liberal" and "conservative reasons." This stuff has been stewing since 2006, caught fire in 2008, and exploded with the stimulus and Obamacare. Spending and big government is one big issue, but the other one is simply attitude.

I was a family member's house last night and saw this headline on the TV. "NRSC won't spend money on this race." That's the problem that so many of the conservative base AND independents have, beyond any ideology. First off, even if the NRSC isn't going to donate money, they need to shut the hell up. Don't give away your game plan. Don't automatically write off competitive seats like a pussycat. Nobody respect that, from any ideology. Where a lot of the disconnect is though between the base, the tea party, Washington, and establishments is this attitude. Who works for who. The establishment and DC leadership thinks they are in charge, they pick their candidates, they appoint party leadership, and that they lead the way and that the base should follow their lead, no matter what. Grass roots vs professionalism, and they believe they are the professionals. That works when everyone is on the same page. When it isn't, then it doesn't work. Neither the base or the independents like being dictated to.

The difference today than in the past is this. Conservative independents (Where most tea party activists fall) and the base republicans no longer are accepting dictates from party leadership. In the minds of most, they FUBARed the situation. A lot of this is aimed at NRSC and to a lesser extent RNC (Steele's foot in mouth). NRSC tried to run off candidates in primaries in favor of RINO's. Castle isn't a RINO. He's a liberal. Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter were RINO's. Now they are democrats. Lisa Murkowski is showing RINO tendancies and may run as a write in. Lincoln Chafee is a RINO who endorsed Obama. Joe Schwarz was a RINO on the house side and backed Mark Schauer. Why the hell are these idiots getting support from leadership IN PRIMARIES. Leadership needs to stay out of primaries and let the state electorate make the decision in the primary. It's leadership's job to elect republicans, not the coronation of their candidates.

In this election season, the majority of time the leadership has dictated a candidate, that candidate was defeated in the primary. That ought to send a message to DC, but DC doesn't get it at all. Charlie Crist quit and ran as a so called independent. Arlen Specter switched primaries and lost anyway. Bob Bennett's bailout votes cost him his job. Bob Inglis lost. Parker Griffith lost. Castle lost. Their preferred primary candidates in Colorado, Nevada, and Kentucky lost too. In Wisconsin, California, and Washington, their preferred candidate won. In New Hampshire (close to call), their candidate is winning barring recount. In Wisconsin, Washington, and New Hampshire, the preferred candidate is acceptable to many of the base as well.

What needs to happen:

1. Leadership needs to stay out of primaries and stop running their mouths. Primaries are decided by state voters, not leadership. Save your money, time, and mouths for the general election.

2. The base that does not like the "coronation" candidate needs to pick someone better who can win. Pat Toomey and Marco Rubio were very good choices. Others aren't.

3. Losers in primaries need to suck it up and take it for the team. One BIG reason a lot of so called establishment "moderates" are almost despised more than democrats are due to people like Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Joe Schwarz, Wayne Gilchrist, Lincoln Chafee, and many so called conservative pundits, Bush administration people (Dowd, McKinnon) and columists in the 2008 election. These assholes (not all moderates, but those I named) got their candidate who they demanded elected (McCain) in the primary, and then go out and endorse a leftist like Obama in the general. Many have LONG memories on that.

4. Pick a better establishment. Marco Rubio said this in his primary against Crist. This is most important. In the end, the establishment is picked by apathy. Party leadership (outside of caucus - NRSC, NRCC, etc) is elected. It's elected by activists. We need to do our homework and make sure the right people are elected. For me it is those that have their ear to the ground and at the same time are strong competent individuals who are good administrators and want to win in the fall.

Did DC learn its lesson? I hope so, but I doubt it.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Reason number 5838523 to not donate a dime to the NRSC

I've long had gripes with the NRSC. As a rule, I do not donate to national political organizations and parties. I usually limit my donations to local committees I know and support or better yet - individual campaigns.

The latest from the clowns at the NRSC shows that they do not give a damn about winning in November. They care about preserving their own jobs only before the party. They are incumbents first, party 2nd, challengers to democrats 3rd.

From Redstate

Dan Riehl put up the letter outlining the complaint Joe Miller has raised over a Murkowski “observer.”

You can read the letter here. In short, the observer used a government computer with access to voter data, transmitted information via his iPhone, and generally flouted the rules to do so.

Turns out the “Mike” who did this is Mike Roman — an NRSC affiliated lawyer who has been hired by the Murkowski campaign. The NRSC made a grand spectacle of pulling back its Chief Counsel from Alaska, but I’m told the NRSC arranged for Mike Roman to help Murkowski in this matter.

The job for the NRSC, RNC, and NRCC is to elect republicans in November. It's not to have coronations for their favorites in primaries. They need to stay the hell out of the primaries. Until they do this, donors should refuse to donate to them and put the money into their own candidates instead.

Let's look at the NRSC's recent history.

2005/2006 - They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative ads in the Rhode Island Senate race. True RINO and Obama/Kerry supporter Lincoln Chafee ran against True Moderate Steve Laffey in the primary. The NRSC spent hundreds of thousands in negative ads against Laffey. Chafee won, and then lost in November to another leftist democrat.

2009 - They endorse Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist. Both are now party switchers as their fiscal liberalism did not coincide with their party's grass roots. They were unable to win their primaries to they are now running as democrats or quasi-democrats. Specter lost his democrat primary, and Crist will lose as a so called "independent." Good riddance to both of those clowns, but this is yet another reason the NRSC is worthless and wasting our money.

2010 - Now they got involved in yet another primary. Lisa Murkowski v Joe Miller. Murkowski is apparently defeated in Alaska, but NRSC lawyers are now working to change that. Since it's close, I don't fault Murkowski for lawyering up, but the NRSC should not be involved here. It's job is to try and retake the senate. Period.


I went in depth on this back in April on why the NRSC sucks.

I've long said that the biggest joke in American politics is the US Senate. That's true now more than ever with clowns like the NRSC, Reid, Levin, Stabenow, Feinstein, Durbin, Corker, Shelby, Dodd, McCain, Biden, Obama, and Leahy, all current or recent senators.

If the NRSC is unwilling to use its time effectively to get a Republican senate, its job, then individuals will have to do its job for them. That means picking the right individual candidates to support in US Senate races. While no Michigan races are up, there are several prominent races worthy of our support. In order, I'd back through a combination of pragmatism, chance to win, and ideology (not all perfect):

1. Pat Toomey - Pennsylvania (Pickup)
2. Marco Rubio - Florida (Defense)
3. Ken Buck - Colorado (Pickup)
4. John Raese - West Virginia (Pickup)
5. Dino Rossi - Washington State (Pickup)
6. John Boozman - Arkansas (Pickup)
7. Winner of Wisconsin Primary (Pickup)
8. Winner of New Hampshire Primary (Defense)
9. Rob Portman - Ohio (Defense)
9. Sharron Angle - Nevada (Pickup)
10. Dan Coates - Indiana (Pickup)
11. Rand Paul - Kentucky (Defense)
12 Linda McMahon - Connecticut (Pickup)

There's no way I could send a dime to Carly Fiorina, Mark Kirk, or Mike Castle even if I was a millionaire because in most years, I could not even vote for them, but those are competitive races, and their committee votes matter and this year would be an exception on that rule. Adding those three would be 12 pickups. I didn't add John Hoeven in North Dakota who is likely to replace Byron Dorgan. That's another pickup, which would be 13. That would give the GOP 54 seats. Do I expect that many wins. No. It would take 10 to pickup the Senate. Do I expect that? No. I expect 52-48 Dem after this race, but I hope I'm wrong. Colorado, Nevada, and Kentucky got tougher after the primary winners there.

If I had to pick two, Toomey and Rubio. Those are two of the most competitive races, along with the two that will piss off the DC establishment the most. Toomey and Rubio got screwed by them, and they will remember.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Establishment RINO candidate Charlie Crist bolts GOP - NRSC with egg on their face

I didn't call Charlie Crist a RINO until today. He sure is one now. I save that term for those who deserve it.
From Redstate



One year ago today, NRSC backed Arlen Specter bolted from the GOP. Today, the media is reporting NRSC backed Charlie Crist is also bolting the GOP.
Seeing a trend here, aren’t we?
Charlie Crist will not only run as an independent in Florida, but he has also reserved all of his air time in Florida through November, or as much as he can.
Why?
Because he knows the Club for Growth is going to do what they did to Specter — fund an effort to have Crist donors ask for their money back. Well, because Crist has spent it all on television advertising holds that he may or may not later use, he can say he has none to give back.
Classy, Charlie.

It's time for the NRSC people to get out of the beltway, away from the cocktail parties,  and take a good hard look at how things work in the real world away from the Capitol reporters bureau, Bethesda, DC, Arlington, and Alexandria.

Two establishment supported candidates are now gone. Arlen Specter left the GOP and went to the democrats after Pennsylvanians rejected him. Joe Stesak is running against him in the democrat primary. I hope he wins the primary and teaches that bum a lesson. If not, oh well. Screw the NRSC, back individual Candidates only


The NRSC is at it again. They officially broke their longtime policy of getting involved in open primaries when they endorsed Charlie Crist, Florida's governor in the open Senate race which is held by Mel Martinez. Marco Rubio, the Florida Speaker of the house, is another candidate.---------------------
I think the DC establishment STILL has not learned their lesson, and will have to be defeated over and over until they get it. They know jack and squat, and jack left the building. They didn't get it with Laffey. They didn't get it with Specter. They don't get it here either. They lost something like 14 seats in 4 years and are doing the same crap they've done before.

If McConnell and Cornyn and the NRSC are backing Crist, then I'm leaning towards Rubio strictly by default. I don't know that much about him, outside of the Weekly standard piece and his website, but what I've heard sounds more good than bad. While I'd probably vote for Rubio over Crist based on fiscal issues, I wouldn't support the NRSC backing either candidate.

The NRSC endorsements bring up another can of worms. When do they endorse and when do they back off? There a major primary battle in Missouri between DC's establishment guy Roy Blunt and Missouri's statewide elected official Sarah Steelman. That's also an open seat. Steelman is attacking Blunt's ties to DC and K-street and fiscal responsibility. That's a valid attack after the job DC's done on fiscal issues the past eight years. Is the NRSC getting involved in one and not the other? That's a can of worms that should not have been open.

And it could have been prevented by the NRSC doing its job and winning general elections. This mismanagement and poor decisionmaking is why you will not see me give one dime to the NRSC. Only individual candidates deserve donations.

I followed that up later the October with Washington Establishment gets Right Hook.


I've said for almost four years that the Republican Party is at a crossroads, mainly due to fiscal issues. It can follow the lead of the Republican Study Committee, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, and Jeb Hensarling in its opposition to deficit spending, or it can follow the lead of Ted Stevens, George W Bush, and Charlie Crist in their support for big spending policies. The choice made here, will determine whether the GOP can take the house back in 2010, and the senate back in 2012 or 2014. It will also determine if Obama will be a one-termer. The bailout in 2008 turned the election from a close race to an ass kicking. The fiscal policies in 2006 caused an ass kicking. Democrat-lite policies from the GOP do not work. Why vote for democrat-lite when the real thing is always available.

While I understand that what works in one community does not always work in another, basic principles should always apply, and that they should be less government and more freedom.

Many in the GOP are starting to get that message again with Obama's radical leftism, Mike Pence having a more visible role, Ted Stevens being defeated, and George W Bush being gone. Starting being the operative word. There's still a lot of trust that needs to be earned, and nobody trusts the government right now. That's why we have the tea parties. That's why the calls are flooding the offices. That's why people are involved in politics who have not been involved.
Speaking of fiscal conservatism and tea parties, they aren't GOP. They are conservative. There's a difference, and people are getting right hooked by it. Florida Governor and senate candidate Charlie Crist is a big example. He was at the Mackinac Conference and probably wants to run for president someday. I was real tempted to get a big banner up there that said "Marco Rubio for Senate." Marco Rubio is Charlie Crist's opponent in the primary. Rubio has one of my favorite quotes. “If you are unhappy with the Republican establishment, then let’s get a new establishment.” Right now, we're in the process there in Washington. The DC insiders don't support Rubio, but that's changing. Rubio called out Crist and rightly so in the magazine Human Events. 
-------------------------------
  In 2005, the NRSC ran negative ads against Steve Laffey who ran against RINO Lincoln Chafee. Chafee got the establishment GOP support and won the primary. He still lost in the general in 2006. The NRSC spent money meant to support republicans, not fight them.

In 2009, the NRSC endorsed big spending Arlen Specter for re-election. Specter is now a democrat because the grassroots republicans had enough of him. Pat Toomey for senate. Toomey is an electable (won three times in a district that went for Gore and Kerry) conservative who can win a tough state like Pennsylvania.

Also this year, the NRSC said they would stay out of the Florida open primary, changed their mind, and supported Charlie Crist. My response? Rubio for senate.

The NRCC isn't much better. In Arizona, they flodded a district with money in an open primary for a candidate that lost. Wasted money.

Those are reasons why I don't give money to the establishment committees. If you plan on donating, the best way to go is to individual candidates, like Rubio, Toomey, Pence, DeMint, etc. Cut out the middleman.

That leads to the Politico article today which was very interesting. Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership. I wouldn't say, "turned" on GOP leadership. Most of the tea partiers I know and talked to never liked the GOP leadership anyway. This is grass roots. These aren't followers, but they chose their own paths. If you give them a big spending republican, they will get opposed just like an Obama democrat.

The way to combat this is to drain the NRSC and back individual candidates for senate. Marco Rubio for senate. Pat Toomey for senate. 

It's up to us as political watchdogs to look at who is running in the different races, research the candidates, be patient and watch how things go, and then make an intelligent decisions on which candidates deserve our support. People like more of the same, Charlie Crist, aren't worth it. Floridians figured that out, and Crist turned tail and left the party. Screw him.

The best revenge here is for Crist to finish third, behind Kendrick Meek and Marco Rubio

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

RNC Litmus Test provision fails unanimously. Right decision.

I think this is was a rash decision that needed to fail. I don't like RINOs, but this isn't the way to stop the DeDe Scozzafavas, Arlen Specters, Lincoln Chafees, Joe Schwarzes, Jim Leaches, and Chuck Hagels who go out and back leftist democrats. There's a difference between RINOs and Liberal Republicans. RINOs are the names I mentioned. Olympia Snowe is NOT a RINO. She's a liberal republican. As bad as she can be on issues, she's not going out and campaigning for Jim Jones Obama.

From Hotline



Members of a committee of state party chairmen voted unanimously today to oppose a so-called "purity test" for GOP candidates, according to a source in the closed-press meeting.
The committee voted to stand against the resolution, offered by IN RNC member Jim Bopp, that would give the party chair the power to cut off funding from a candidate who did not meet at least 8 of 10 ideological benchmarks.

It sounds great, but it won't solve the problem. I'm not that pissed off at the RNC or even NRCC, which I don't like, for backing Scozzafava. That's their job. This isn't like the NRSC throwing their weight in primaries like they did for Lincoln Chafee and are doing right now against Marco Rubio against fiscal liberal Republican Charlie Crist.

The problem is that Scozzafava was picked by a one vote margin by a committee of county chairs in New York. They picked a candidate who was rejected by the voters IN HER DISTRICT. That was shown by her 5% vote and 3rd place polling behind both the democrat and by the conservative party's Doug Hoffman (who had his own troubles like not understanding local issues in the district).

That wasn't the DC establishment's fault, and while I'm not exactly a cheerleader for the RNC/NRCC/NRSC, blame needs to be put where it belongs, on the annointers. When there is no primary, the onus on the committee is to pick not your buddy, but the person that fits the district. Primaries normally do the job, and in 99% of all cases, that's what determines the candidate for the district. That's why we don't need litmus tests for funding. What we need is for RNC/NRSC/NRCC to let the district voters of the primary, determine the nominee, and those people are what need to be backed. It is OUR job to weed out the RINOs and to pick the best candidate for our districts. Scozzafava would not have survived a primary. Specter was going down, and isn't accepted by the people in either party now. Joe Sestak will kick his sorry ass if Pat Toomey won't. Joe Schwarz crashed and burned.

The last thing we need is for DC to make more decisions regarding our candidates, even in cases where it is well intended.

In other news, the state of the union speech is tonight. I'll catch the reader's digest version of it from Redstate or something. It's all crap anyway. Actions, not words.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Washington Establishment gets right hook

Politico has a great article today that leads to this long editorial.

I've said for almost four years that the Republican Party is at a crossroads, mainly due to fiscal issues. It can follow the lead of the Republican Study Committee, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, and Jeb Hensarling in its opposition to deficit spending, or it can follow the lead of Ted Stevens, George W Bush, and Charlie Crist in their support for big spending policies. The choice made here, will determine whether the GOP can take the house back in 2010, and the senate back in 2012 or 2014. It will also determine if Obama will be a one-termer. The bailout in 2008 turned the election from a close race to an ass kicking. The fiscal policies in 2006 caused an ass kicking. Democrat-lite policies from the GOP do not work. Why vote for democrat-lite when the real thing is always available.

While I understand that what works in one community does not always work in another, basic principles should always apply, and that they should be less government and more freedom.

Many in the GOP are starting to get that message again with Obama's radical leftism, Mike Pence having a more visible role, Ted Stevens being defeated, and George W Bush being gone. Starting being the operative word. There's still a lot of trust that needs to be earned, and nobody trusts the government right now. That's why we have the tea parties. That's why the calls are flooding the offices. That's why people are involved in politics who have not been involved.

Speaking of fiscal conservatism and tea parties, they aren't GOP. They are conservative. There's a difference, and people are getting right hooked by it. Florida Governor and senate candidate Charlie Crist is a big example. He was at the Mackinac Conference and probably wants to run for president someday. I was real tempted to get a big banner up there that said "Marco Rubio for Senate." Marco Rubio is Charlie Crist's opponent in the primary. Rubio has one of my favorite quotes. “If you are unhappy with the Republican establishment, then let’s get a new establishment.” Right now, we're in the process there in Washington. The DC insiders don't support Rubio, but that's changing. Rubio called out Crist and rightly so in the magazine Human Events.

The only enduring legacy of this stimulus will be the deficit it’s left us with,” Rubio said. “I don’t care how much money he raises — he will never convince Florida Republicans that the stimulus package and his embrace of it, and his campaigning in favor of it — hand in hand with the president — was a good thing for Florida, a good thing for their children, or a good thing for our country”

Rubio is frank in his assessment of why Crist went along with the stimulus at the time: Obama was popular.

“I think he supported the stimulus package because Barack Obama was popular at the time, and I think he supported it because he didn’t want to have a budget session in Tallahassee where he had to make difficult decisions — which, quite frankly, is reflective of everything that’s wrong in American politics today,” Rubio said. “We have too many people that just want to be popular.”


Right on the nose. That is also a big reason why I NEVER donate to the NRSC or NRCC. Those two groups pick and choose establishment candidates and fund them, even in primaries.

In 2005, the NRSC ran negative ads against Steve Laffey who ran against RINO Lincoln Chafee. Chafee got the establishment GOP support and won the primary. He still lost in the general in 2006. The NRSC spent money meant to support republicans, not fight them.

In 2009, the NRSC endorsed big spending Arlen Specter for re-election. Specter is now a democrat because the grassroots republicans had enough of him. Pat Toomey for senate. Toomey is an electable (won three times in a district that went for Gore and Kerry) conservative who can win a tough state like Pennsylvania.

Also this year, the NRSC said they would stay out of the Florida open primary, changed their mind, and supported Charlie Crist. My response? Rubio for senate.

The NRCC isn't much better. In Arizona, they flodded a district with money in an open primary for a candidate that lost. Wasted money.

Those are reasons why I don't give money to the establishment committees. If you plan on donating, the best way to go is to individual candidates, like Rubio, Toomey, Pence, DeMint, etc. Cut out the middleman.

That leads to the Politico article today which was very interesting. Tea partiers turn on GOP leadership. I wouldn't say, "turned" on GOP leadership. Most of the tea partiers I know and talked to never liked the GOP leadership anyway. This is grass roots. These aren't followers, but they chose their own paths. If you give them a big spending republican, they will get opposed just like an Obama democrat.

“It’s an outgrowth of the frustration people have had with the Republican Party,” said Andrew Moylan, director of governmental affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, another group that has played a large role in organizing the tea party movement. “I think a lot of people have been angry at Republicans for betraying our trust.”

“I think the GOP establishment has ignored their constituents and the feelings of their constituents for years,” added Meckler.

It’s an unusual predicament for the Republican Party, since the conservative-oriented issues that animate Tea Party activists once seemed destined to make the movement a valuable auxiliary to the Republican Party.

While there’s little evidence of tea party activist support for Democratic candidates, the specific notion of electing a GOP majority hasn’t ranked high on their agenda either.


Trust has to be re-earned. This was the major damage done to the GOP after Gingrich and Armey left, and after the arrival of President Bush.

One of those activists, Canyon Clowdus, an Army veteran who is taking on third term conservative Rep. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), has blasted the incumbent for making “a horrible mistake” in voting for Troubled Asset Relief Program.

“He has put a financial burden on my four children that will amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars each,” Clowdus says of Conaway on his campaign website.

“I think it was a bad, bad political decision,” Armey said of the 34 Senate Republicans and 91 House Republicans who voted for the TARP bailout, “and if you talk to grassroots activists, it has become a political test for them.”

Moylan agreed that TARP is “really kind of the flash point that started all of this.”


The bailout, supported and OWNED by Obama, Bush, and McCain. The stimulus package. Cap and trade. One after another. ALL of it is bad. Pete Hoekstra has mostly a good record, but he voted for the bailout the second time it was in the house. I can't get past that, and it cost him a chance at my primary vote (I'm supporting Mike Cox) for governor. Hoekstra's a good guy, but on fiscal issues that are tough decisions, I now have big doubts about his ability to handle pressure.

More:
For some, supporting insurgent campaigns or waging primary bids just isn’t a strong enough signal to send to a Republican Party that has abandoned core conservative policies.

Erick Erickson, founder and editor of the influential conservative blog RedState, has urged Tea Party activists to “put down the protest signs” and stage takeovers of local Republican parties.

“Grassroots activists need to start infiltrating the party,” said Erickson. “The only way to start getting [the establishment] back is to start pounding them with every fist we have.”


While I'm more judicious with the fists and pound them when I must, I don't believe in fighting blind. Know the rules of the game and use them to your advantage. I agree with the general premise, which goes to Rubio's comment about getting a new establishment.

In Michigan, our GOP committees are elected. It starts with precinct delegates. There are also usually more openings than spots filled for this position. That is an elected position in the August primary election. I've run for the position, and won every single time without even running a campaign. The primary job of the precinct delegates is to seat people at the state convention and elect people to the county executive committee. It's relatively easy, at least here, to seat people at state convention. I've been a state delegate every time I wanted to be. State delegates vote on district committee (where I currently serve), state committee, state chair/vice chairs, RNC committeeman, and candidates for some offices on the November ballot, including Attorney General, Supreme Court, and Secretary of State. It's a big deal. Those are the rules of the game, and also remember this. Washington establishment is the big problem. Many, many, mid and low level establishment figures in the GOP away from Washington are good friends of fiscal conservatism. Not everyone in the party is a RINO.

I don't know how it works in states besides Michigan, but if people really want to make a change on spending issues, it starts with getting involved long term. If you are a conservative and an old style 1994 Republican, get involved. It's your party as much as it is mine. Work hard, but most importantly, work smart. That's how to get a new establishment, and how to LAND a right hook against the Washington establishment instead of a swing and a miss.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Screw the NRSC, back individual candidates only

Real quickly.

The NRSC is at it again. They officially broke their longtime policy of getting involved in open primaries when they endorsed Charlie Crist, Florida's governor in the open Senate race which is held by Mel Martinez. Marco Rubio, the Florida Speaker of the house, is another candidate.

Crist is a centrist Republican on social issues and a liberal Republican on economic issues with his support of tax increases and Obama's pork bills. So far, he's real good on 2nd Amendment issues, and he is pro-life on the abortion issue. He's not my favorite, but I wouldn't consider him a RINO but a center-left Republican. There's a difference. A RINO is Lincoln Chafee, Bill Milliken, or Colin Powell. RINO's back democrats for President or Governor.

Rubio is a less government conservative from relatively blue Miami-Dade county.

I have a big problem with the NRSC's decision. The job of the NRSC is to defeat democrats, not get involved in the Republican primaries 15 months in advance. This trash is one of the reasons why the GOP is in a minority and the funds to the NRSC dry up. If I'm a donor whose goal is to take back the Senate, I don't want my money to be dried up in primary spending, and I damn well don't want it to be dried up in attack ads. These jokers are throwing good guys to the wolves in GENERAL elections, while backing their pets in the primaries. What the hell are they thinking?

What's the NRSC going to do in this primary? It is going to spend money on ads bashing Rubio like they did to Steve Laffey in Rhode Island (against real RINO Lincoln Chafee in 96....who lost re-election). The NRSC supported Arlen Specter until he switched parties. On the other hand, they couldn't find one person to run against Mark Pryor in Arkansas? On the NRCC side (House), they pushed in primaries for their pets and got beat in the primary AND general. Good job fools.

The NRSC also previously said they would stay out of the Florida primary.

FLASHBACK: Just last week, Cornyn told the Politico he would stay out of the race, saying, "I don't think it's the proper role of the NRSC or folks in Washington to try to tell Floridians who their nominee should be, so I think that will have to work its way out."


Nice switch, guys. Thanks a lot. The National Journal gives a warning.

Today's biggest news: The NRSC will back Crist, their goal being to dry up Rubio's money. Will it also rile up conservatives who want DC to stay out? Nothing helps an underdog like taking it to "the man." We're still waiting to see if the Club for Growth weighs in.


I'm all for sticking it to the DC establishment. I loved Rubio's response to the NRSC endorsement.

Rubio's spokesman Brian Seitchik had this to say about the NRSC's endorsement: "We knew that Governor Crist was going to have the establishment's support in Washington and Tallahassee. The NRSC endorsement is not a surprise. But this campaign is about more than Marco and Charlie Crist. This campaign is about the future of the Republican Party. Marco and Crist have fundamentally different approaches to solving problems, and this campaign will be about those differences."


This was followed by this youtube ad seen at Roll Call

“Some politicians support trillions in reckless spending, borrowed money from China and the Middle East, mountains of debt for our children, and a terrible threat to a fragile economy,” an announcer in the ad states over a visual of Crist and Obama together. “Today too many politicians embrace Washington’s same old broken ways but this time there is a leader who won’t. Let the debate begin.”


I think the DC establishment STILL has not learned their lesson, and will have to be defeated over and over until they get it. They know jack and squat, and jack left the building. They didn't get it with Laffey. They didn't get it with Specter. They don't get it here either. They lost something like 14 seats in 4 years and are doing the same crap they've done before.

If McConnell and Cornyn and the NRSC are backing Crist, then I'm leaning towards Rubio strictly by default. I don't know that much about him, outside of the Weekly standard piece and his website, but what I've heard sounds more good than bad. While I'd probably vote for Rubio over Crist based on fiscal issues, I wouldn't support the NRSC backing either candidate.

The NRSC endorsements bring up another can of worms. When do they endorse and when do they back off? There a major primary battle in Missouri between DC's establishment guy Roy Blunt and Missouri's statewide elected official Sarah Steelman. That's also an open seat. Steelman is attacking Blunt's ties to DC and K-street and fiscal responsibility. That's a valid attack after the job DC's done on fiscal issues the past eight years. Is the NRSC getting involved in one and not the other? That's a can of worms that should not have been open.

And it could have been prevented by the NRSC doing its job and winning general elections. This mismanagement and poor decisionmaking is why you will not see me give one dime to the NRSC. Only individual candidates deserve donations.