McCain Blames Club for Growth for Blowing the Majority
By AmandaBCarpenter Posted in Republicans — Comments (95) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"The reason why we don't have a majority in the Senate today is because of the attacks Club for Growth made on Lincoln Chafee, the senator for Rhode Island. A liberal Republican senator, but would have voted for Mitch McConnell to be Majority Leader of the Senate."
"They have continuously attacked Republicans they don't agree with. I believe in a big tent party. I believe there is room for someone from Rhode Island who may not agree with everything I agree with. But I still want him in the Republican Party. That's not the case with the Club for Growth. I'm not really sure what the Club for Growth and I have in common."
McCain's remarks come less than a week after the Club for Growth's Pat Toomey wrote a scathing article in the Wall Street Journal about Sen. John McCain's (R.-Ariz.) record on taxes.
On March 13 Toomey's piece "The McCain Record" was published in the WSJ to promote the Club for Growth's new white paper on the Republican presidential candidate. The piece knocked McCain hard for opposing the Bush tax cuts and said "American taxpayers cannot expect consistently pro-growth economic policies from a McCain administration."
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Fred Thompson meets Ronald Reagan — Comments (6) »
McCain Blames Club for Growth for Blowing the Majority 95 Comments (0 topical, 95 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Democrats would have a 70-30 majority. Let's keep our guns focused on the R's! Let's boot anybody we disagree with, and resign ourselves to living as a barely-above-third-party status! Let's give up any hope of a majority in Congress and the White House and be stubborn, exclusive, irrelevent activists for our cause!!!
In 2006, the base turned out. They turned out in close Congressional seats. They turned out in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Virginia, in Missouri, and even in Montana. In several states, the amount of Republicans who voted for a GOP candidate increased from 2004 to 2006. While there are many factors that led to the result, the result of the elections was squarely due to independents and moderates.
The only state (besides Rhode Island and its disproportionate Democratic numbers) where more moderates broke for the Republican than the Democratic challenger was Tennessee, which is not coincedentally the only close Senate race we won. In all the other states, some of which where Independents voted for Bush in 2004 by a 20-point margin, now voted for the Democrats by the same or higher margin.
The bottom line: In order to win, we MUST reach out to Independents and moderates. This ideological purity bullsh*t will be the absolute end of us. Celebrating our conformity will be celebrating our irrelevency.
In case you missed it the 2006 election defeat was retribution for trying to out democrat the democrats. The Republican majority was elected to accomplish several goals. These goals include lowering taxes, restoring limited government, and fighting government corruption (the majority of these goals pertain to combating corruption). Since 2000 the Republican majorities in Congress have repeatedly expanded government, have in several cases become corrupt (see lobbying, bribery, etc. scandals), and have even raised taxes (on Americans living abroad and by not dealing with the AMT). The Club's actions in several primaries if anything tried to focus voter retribution on specific officials instead of the party as a whole. If anything we need more serious primary challenges to incumbents involved in corruption/ethics scandals to remove such candidates from the Republican Party slate before they lose the general election. I suspect that we would have done better in 2006 if Burns and several others were replaced on the general election ballot.
Incidentally: lowering taxes, restoring limited government, and anti-corruption reforms all poll well with the electorate in general and with swing voters as well.
Polls: 1,2,3,4,5 (Poll 5 shows that Republican Party image has declined since 2001-02, which is around the same time as party moved to "Big Government Republicanism.), 6 (Buried in Poll 6's results are big time disapprovals of the President's handling f corruption in government and controlling federal spending), 7
P.S. Club for Growth candidates who win their primaries almost always go on to win seats in Congress.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Was brand image. Its not a coincedence that Independents and Moderates (generally speaking) are the ones who pay the least amount of attention to politics. These voters don't differentiate between a corrupt/incompetent Republican (like Burns, Allen, Sweeney, or Weldon, all of whom deserved to lose) and a well-to-do Republican who got caught in the crossfire. It was a combination of the President's unpopularity, the distate for the 109th Congress, and the various House scandals, all of which Republicans were to blame for. The voters that deserted the GOP didn't think, "Man, I hope the voters in Ohio 18th elect a Democrat this time". They thought, "Man, things are getting pretty hairy, maybe I should vote for a Democrat this time." You can, and should, point to individuals within the party who messed up, but the result was a national brand image that equated the Republican Party with "bad".
What's my point? I believe that we still live in a center-right country, but independents and moderates didn't vote for the Democrats because they thought the Republican Party didn't stand on principle. They didn't vote for the Democrats because they thought the Democrats would achieve things on the GOP platform (like lower taxes, less government, and other things that poll well). They voted for the Democrats because, in a two-party election, they were the ones who looked better. It doesn't matter if the person in the election was a moderate Republican, or a Club for Growth challenger who defeated the incumbent in the primary. If they had a (R) next to their name in 2006, they were starting a leg down.
And the reason that CfG primary winners always win the general election is because CDs where the CfG can motivate a mass amount of right-wing conservatives to oust the incumbent Republican are strong-red CDs that are rarely competitive.
What was wrong with the GOP's brand was that they weren't adhering to the economic principles that the Club for Growth advocated.
Duh!
If the GOP congress had been scoring 95-100% on the Club for Growth's scorecard, the GOP would still be in power today.
Much of the brand image problem is a result of the party’s abandonment of Conservatism (conservative principles are the Republican brand). I know that not every aspect of Conservatism is universally popular among the electorate, or independents for that matter, but the principles that Republicans in the Congress abandoned under “Big Government Conservatism" (limited government, open government, anti-corruption, etc.) are. It is the abandonment of these Conservative principles that has hurt the Republican brand.
Additionally voters (who are willing to vote Republican) do distinguish between a candidate that was part of a scandal and one who is just a member of the same party as several scandal ridden candidates. While all candidates on a slate may suffer at the ballot box to some degree from their colleagues corruption, the corrupt/scandal ridden Republican candidates face almost certain defeat. The consistent act of dumping corrupt/scandal ridden candidates can save the outcomes of a lot of elections for the Republican Party (see the Alaska Governorship in 2006). It will also help the brand by showing the Republican Party as an enemy of corruption.
That said the only consistent entity (that I am aware of) within the Conservative Movement that is both willing to and successful at making primary challenges against corrupt/scandal ridden candidates is the Club for Growth.
P.S. The Club for Growth stands for many of the principles that used to be the hallmarks of the Republican brand.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
The usual argument is that it's the prolifers who pull down the GOP by their purity tests, or the "cultural conservatives," etc. -- because they alienate the more libertarian, economy-minded folks.
But here comes Spiker telling us that, no, it's insisting the GOP be the party of low taxes and spending that fractures the Party . . .
Only, what's left?
The idea of being all things to all factions is a great party-building program; just as the Whigs.
The GOP fuddled along, for awhile, as a nearly irrelevant minority during the latter half of the 20th Century because of its "me too-ism" and "dime store liberalism" echoing the Democrats. What propelled it from that state, to majority status in Congress in 1994, was offering a clear alternative and convincing various conservative constituencies that it would fight for what they cared about.
What cost them the majority was that they frittered away their credibility. Their behavior since the election has tended to validate the conclusion that they no longer cared much about what they claimed to be for, in 1994.
By the way, if memory serves, Mr. Chafee said last fall, did he not, that he wouldn't necessarily have remained in the GOP for the new term! So much for the importance of electing him.
Actually, the agreement he reached with the Republican leadership is that they (and the NRSC) would support Chafee in the primary and general and he would not switch parties or turn (I) like Jeffords. If you want to accuse him of lying about that, that's your choice.
Its worse than I remember. Instead of having Chafee split the libs we threw a conservative under the bus for a politicians promise.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
All this is of course ignoring the laughable assumption that 20-Watt Chafee could be trusted once safely re-elected.
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
I never accused Mr. Chafee of lying, I don't appreciate you suggesting I did.
If you google "Lincoln Chafee" and "stay Republican," two articles come up. One from APsaying he might not stay GOP after losing; and another from 2004, at Newsmax.com, about how he flirted with leaving the GOP after Bush's re-election.
My recollection of the first was affected by the second; so in fairness to Mr. Chafee, I can't cite anything saying he wouldn't have stayed GOP had he been re-elected. But the record speaks for itself; that they had to wring a promise from him to stay GOP (for how long, do you know?) speaks volumes about how "loyal" he was.
If that's the deal the leadership had to cut with Chafee, then we're far better off without him.
I am a conservative who happens to be registered Republican, and the leadership needs to remember that. To use his words, I don't see what McCain and I have in common.
If you are going to blame Club for Growth for denying Chafee his seat, how did they do it? Who, exactly, did they convince not to vote for Chafee?
Chafee was a liberal; so liberals, presumably, had reason to vote for him. Are McCain and Spiker actually claiming Club for Growth's attacks made liberals like him less?
No, Club for Growth appealed to their own constituency -- those who want lower taxes, less spending, less government meddling. So what is McCain's point -- shame on Club for Growth for not conniving with the GOP establishment in hoodwinking pro low-tax, low-spending folks into thinking Chafee was their guy? (Notice how McCain and like folks believe the various conservative issue-constituencies have a duty to vote for GOP candidates, even when they don't support what those individuals care about. Sorta like the Democrats believe African Americans have some sort of obligation to vote Democratic...)
Oh, but I thought Spiker's point was that we need to appeal beyond such folks? And exactly what was it Club for Growth did to deny Chafee the votes of people who don't care what Club for Growth says?
And if the reason Chafee lost is because he was out of step with Club for Growth's agenda, then doesn't that mean he'd have done better had he listened to them, and voted their way? Doesn't that mean the problem wasn't Club for Growth pointing out his record, but . . . his record itself?
So, I understand why he might be upset at Chafee losing. His award might be a little bit further diminished now. LOL. :-)
I have been trying to withhold judgment on the candidates but McCain is making it very easy to dislike him. Chafee should never have been supported in the primaries by the national organization.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Truly there are no words.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
A senator that does his job has nothing to fear from a primary. Club For Growth has not changed positions on anything since they became active. These people were smart enough to read their job descriptions and should have known the tastes and predilictions of the electorates that voted them into office.
McCain is a shameless attention-harlot who will sell out Conservative ideals to get his mug on the front page of Isvestia By The Hudson. He just doesn't appreciate Club For Growth because they call him on that.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
On Tuesday, March 13th, Pat Toomey of the Club For Growth wrote an opinion piece at OpinionJournal.com that was critical of John McCain, but I thought it was a fair piece.
So this criticism of them has to be payback for that piece. McCain comes across as a thin-skinned man with a temper who can't handle criticism.
I don't think he can win the election. His window of opportunity is closed.
Keep the pressure on Mr. Toomey!
So this criticism of them has to be payback for that piece. McCain comes across as a thin-skinned man with a temper who can't handle criticism.
Word.
This is yet another example of why I don't think John McCain has the temperament to be President.
Luckily, it's looks like he doesn't have the temperament to *run* for President either.
Once again, it looks like the process of running for President is going to save us from another 'lemon'...
I shudder every time I hear reference to a "big tent party". Reminds me of the old joke that if you are too open minded, your brain will fall out.
If a party becomes a "big tent party" it by definition stands for nothing and will quickly lose relevance.
Republicans should stand for something and then invite others to join us. In the year 2007, we have it all backwards.
His take was, IIRC: "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out!"
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I'm all in favor of a 'big tent' republican party. But I'd remind people that at a certain point, a tent can become so large that all it's good for is a circus...
I wonder, if Laffey (sp?) had won the primary and then lost the general election, would McCain be decrying the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) in negative ads the NRSC ran against him? Count me skeptical.
The 'big tent' principle, if it's going to work, has to work both ways. That means that moderate republicans need to be willing to vote for one of those awful conservative knuckledraggers when they win the primary. I've seen a lot more willingness on the part of conservatives to vote for moderates than I've seen of moderates willing to vote for conservatives. Just ask Brett Schundler in NJ exactly how willing the moderates are to supporting a conservative.
And I'm not easily offended.
That should read either "McCain (M) Arizona" ("M" for McCain) or "McCain (?) Washington DC".
John McCain represents only two interests consistently. His own and those of the entrenched political class in DC.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
First, seems to me like there's a pretty good chance Linc wouldn't have voted for McConnell. There's nothing like a 50/50 split to encourage party jumping.
Second, as Republicans we need to maintain some sort of ideological standard. And one of the few bedrock values that Republicans hold nearly unanimously is the need for a more originalist/constructionist Supreme Court. Chafee fought against that.
-
NARF
There's nothing like a liberal Democrat from the bluest state in the nation who is guaranteed to never face a competitive race in his career to advance the Club for Growth cause!
with Chafee. The overriding issue most of us have with Chafee is that the NRSC forked over substantial cash to Chafee IN HIS PRIMARY fight. (Just like they did with Specter when Toomey ran against him in the primary.)
Just so we're clear on this, I think Linc Chafee is about the most disgusting excuse for a US Senator I could imagine. Had the NRSC stayed out of the primary and had LC won it, I would have choked back the vomit and hoped he won the general. As it is, I have no problem with him getting his clock cleaned by Whitehouse and frankly, Whitehouse won't be voting against any judges LC would have supported and his record won't be much further to the left than LC's.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
I think Spiker's framing of the issue is essentially correct.
The NRSC's job is to win as many Senate seats as possible. It is electoral, not ideological. They need to support the candidate most likely to win in the general election. In this case, the candidate was Chafee. I would argue that the same was true in the case of Specter/Toomey race in PA. Specter was guaranteed a cruise to a victory while Toomey would have struggled to hold the seat. PA overall has been turning anti-GOP since 2002, as witnessed recently by the utter wipeout of Rick Santorum by Senator Empty Suit (D-PA).
It's all good and well for the NRSC to support their own incumbent, or whoever they think has a better chance to win the general. I worked on a campaign for a moderate republican who was challenged from the right, and we were grateful for the support of NRSC.
But supporting the preferred candidated is one thing, going on the offensive against the challenger is entirely different. In doing so, had Laffey won the primary, the NRSC would have been stuck with a candidate they'd trashed, and now had a much diminished chance of retaining the seat.
The NRSC should have run ads praising Chafee for "standing up for RI voters" or whatever the theme was. They shouldn't have run ads saying "Laffey is scary and mean to old people, children, and puppies."
BTW, electing a conservative in RI is not out of the question. Just ask their governor. The overwhelming Democrat tilt in that state is more a function of a strong party machine and a weak republican organization and liberal dominance. RI Dems passed a flat tax, the Dem mayor of Providence is pushing to get away from defined-benefit pensions, the Dem legislature voted in a school-choice tax credit program...
So, I think it fair to say a respectable (meaning not-raving-loon) Club-for-Growth type candidate (which Laffey was) would have stood a decent chance in the general. Without the NRSC trashing him, of course.
You've been here almost an hour and you've gotten to show off your ignorance. Go back and read the blogs on the subject and then comment.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
If, as you say, length of time is the only font of wisdom, that must make Robert Byrd and Teddy Kennedy the smartest men in the Senate, eh?
nothing more, nothing less. Everyone starts at zero and gets to build from there.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
shined up from the big weekend?....I know it was a big deal...but come on!!!
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
I'll spell it out in simple words.
When you are new, it's a good idea to avoid really stupid comments. You are up to two on this thread. It's a good idea to establish some credibility with the community before you start making toss off comments. All you've proved so far is that you aren't really all that bright and you're even a tad challenged when it comes to snotty comments like the one here.
If you really just want to be a jerk-in-print, go somewhere else.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
What exactly did I say in this post that you found "stupid" as you so wittily put it?
"The NRSC's job is to win as many Senate seats as possible. It is electoral, not ideological."
You can agree or disagree with this, but I think it is on solid, reasonable ground.
"They need to support the candidate most likely to win in the general election. In this case, the candidate was Chafee."
Also grounded in reality. Rhode Island is one of the most liberal states in the USA. Even in a good year for Republicans, they aren't going to elect a conservative Republcian as Senator. Rhode Island hasn't had a conservative Republican U.S. Senator since the 1930s. Laffey generally had his head in the right places, but his ideas wouldn't fly in that state. Had he won the nomination, it would have been a cakewalk for Whitehouse.
"I would argue that the same was true in the case of Specter/Toomey race in PA. Specter was guaranteed a cruise to a victory while Toomey would have struggled to hold the seat. PA overall has been turning anti-GOP since 2002, as witnessed recently by the utter wipeout of Rick Santorum by Senator Empty Suit (D-PA)."
Again, I think this is reasonable. Pennsylvania in recent years seems to like their Governors and Senators from the mushy middle. The last three elected governors (Casey, Ridge, Rendell) have been (or at least claimed to be) mushy centrists. And Santorum got trounced by an opponent with no ideas, largely because he successfully sold himself as a idea-less "centrist."
Permitting unjustified personal attacks and insulting language lowers the quality of discourse on Redstate.
The fact that a "regular" habitually gets away with it indicates a double standard.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
...in the future, please save public calls for moderators for the exceptionally bad stuff; neonazis, obvious mobys, homophobes, chickenhawkers, that sort of thing. More delicate situations are better suited for the Contact Us link, so that we may delicately handle them. Capische?
That being said: come on, mbecker908. You know I hate playing the bad guy towards regulars. A little less exuberance, 'kay?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
There's nothing like setting an example by taking down a single RINO. You see 300 yet?
Look, I'm in favor of a big tent, and I don't use the term RINO loosely. McCain is no RINO; Romney is no RINO; Giuliani is no RINO. None of them is a pure conservative, but they all hold to certain aspects of conservatism. Chafee, on the other hand, is strongly pro-choice; is strongly in favor of gay rights; opposed the use of force in Iraq; supports the death tax; voted to reinstate the 39.6% tax rate; opposed John Bolton; opposed Samuel Alito; supports affirmative action; supports gun control.
Chafee is at odds with the party on social policy, fiscal policy, AND foreign policy. His possibility of defection would have put the Republican majority in the Senate at his service -- assuming that he would've allowed it to occur at all. I'm not happy that the Republicans fell to the minority in the Senate, but a Senate majority crippled by Chafee would not have been much of an improvement, IMO.
-
NARF
What's the sense of having Chafee in our caucus if he votes against everything important? Putting him on committees means we're in the minority on those committees since Chafee will abandon us on any important vote throwing that committee majority to the other side. We end up with a majority in name only, which is useless.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Chafee is not a conservative, has never been a conservative and never will be a conservative. He wasted the time of the leadership and the Senate, and now he will have plenty of time to see the factories in his blue state continue to rust as a result of liberal economic policies.
I'd rather be in the minority than be held hostage by a liberal.
I understand that the common wisdom for this election is that we must get those independents/moderates from the middle back on our side to win. The base alone won't be enough to do it in the general. But McCain seems to be forgetting that he needs to win the primaries first. It's as if he's decided to try to win the primaries without the conservative base, and that seems exceedingly counterintuitive to me.
Frankly, I think the polling has convinced McCain that he cannot win the Republican nomination, so he is positioning himself to run as a third-party Independent in the general election.
That said, his criticism of CFG and Rhode Island is correct. In a state that runs 70% liberal, Chafee was the only real shot at holding that seat for the GOP. Laffey would have lost by 20+ points. A RINO is better than a far-left DEM if those are the only two options.
I sure hope you're wrong! If McCain runs as an independent, he'll pretty much hand the election to the Democrats, wrapped up with a big bow on top. It only takes one state, or a percentage or two of the popular vote, to tip an election to the other side these days.
McCain's a traitor to the party in many ways, but I really hope he's not THAT much of a traitor! He would go down in history as the guy who single-handedly blew the election of 2008 for Republicans. Surely he doesn't want that kind of infamy.
I think McCain sees polls that independents (the largest voting bloc) favor him over his GOP and Dem rivals, and has convinced himself-probably wrongly-that they would favor him even if he ran a third-party candidacy.
He's probably envisioning:
Rudy: 30% (wins republicans)
McCain: 40% (wins independents)
Hillary: 30% (wins democrats)
with a majority of the electoral votes going to him.
He's just not going to win the GOP nomination with Rudy in the game. So, if he really desperately wants to be President, third-party is his only shot.
I really hope McCain's analysts aren't encouraging him to try an independent run. Independent voters are a fickle lot. Many of them tend to wait until the very last minute to decide how to vote, and they'll decide based on the tiniest things (like, "Wow, did you see that bad haircut McCain got the week before the election? I'm not voting for that guy.") I would never try to pin my hopes entirely on them.
I can see, though, how the seeming egalitarianism of a McCain/Lieberman split ticket would appeal to many independents, who can't seem to decide which side they're on themselves. It's just that it will split the independent vote in a way that favors the Dems, not McCain. The Republican ticket will be pro-war (because Hagel has no chance); the Democrat ticket will be anti-war (because their kook base requires it); a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be pro-war. I believe that, barring a dramatic and unexpected change during the next two years, the war will still be the biggest issue influencing voters. Therefore, a McCain independent run would split the pro-war vote by some major percentage, leaving most or all of the anti-war vote for the Dems--a landslide.
Don't try an independent run, Mr. McCain!!!
The more I hear from McCain, the more convinced I become that he has no interest in appealing to Republican primary voters- ie the base.
He should know what he's doing because he went against the base in 2000- cozying up with the media, attacking evangelicals, hedging on tax cuts- and it blew up in his face.
Going against the conservative base again now, he has to know how it will end. He probably has concluded that he can't win the R nomination and is just trying to set himself up for an independent run, partnering up with Joe Liberman or something along those lines, which from his perspective is probably the rational thing to do.
His chances of becoming president as an independent probably is more likely than his chance of becoming president as a republican.
Could actually backfire on the Left. If the GOP went to Fred Thompson, and salted down a good 80% of its base vote, McCain Lieberman could wreck havoc on The Democrats in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Connecticutt.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
I wonder if he has harkened back to his Keating Five Heyday. He might have already started receiving his stuffed envelopes to go 'Bull-Moose' this election and throw it to the left.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
Senator McCain,
It appears you disagree with the Club of Growth. You are in luck. They are holding a big meeting in the near future, and I understand you have an invitation to address them. What an opportunity to reach out and maybe come to some mutual understanding. Is this serendipity or what?
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling
It seems few people want to address this question, but one of Fred Thompson's big image hurdles would be his marriage. I think loving marriages of all types are marvelous, but May-December romances still creep out a substantial portion of the voting public (most of whom I would guess are Republicans). Fred is 64, his wife is 39.
It would be great if all elections were debated just on the issues (which I think Thompson would have the upper hand in vs. just about anyone), but that's "twinkle city" fantasy. National elections have always been as much about image as about substance.
I don't think it SHOULD be an issue. I like Thompson the most out of any of the potential candidates in the field. The question is whether the dinosaur media WILL make it an issue. I don't think the Dem-kissing MSM will leave any line of attack unused against a Republican candidate. CNN,CBS,etc., will try to paint Thompson nastily just as they maliciously tried to paint Reagan as senile in the 1984 election.
MSM smear merchants have already done polling about how to use the following against Republican candidates: Romney's religious beliefs, McCain's age, and Giuliani's divorces. Heck, in 2004 I remember some nutty Dems bringing up Laura Bush's teenage car crash as a way to attack GWB.
You misunderstand. This isn't good trolling, in fact, this isn't even a good nonsense riff.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
It isn't intended to be trolling or nonsense. Just cold hard facts that the MSM after 8 years of BDS will use anything to attack a GOP candidate. Why else would a recent ABC/WaPo poll be about this stuff?
"In this poll, nearly six in 10 Americans said they would be less likely to vote for an older candidate, three in 10 less likely to vote for a Mormon, a quarter less likely to support a candidate with two divorces and 21 percent less likely to back someone who smokes cigarettes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR200702...
I wonder which candidates they are probing here for avenues of attack?
by the law of unintended consquences. The poll and its results are both nonsense.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The party of tolerance is not very tolerant then.
Gosh, I seriously doubt anyone other than someone fishing for an excuse to disapprove of his candidacy would even be concerned with this.
Wubbies World - The odds of hitting your target go up dramatically when you actually aim for it!
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
...and 64 is no Old Man Winter. If my 15YO daughter marries a 30 year old, lots of trouble. If my 25 YO daughter marries a 50 YO , some trouble. If my 35YO daughter marries a 60YO, I'll tsk-tsk from the beach house. Is there something more salacious here that you're dying not to address?
You'd better put some ice on those welts.
Not taxes. Not Judges. Not the war against Islamic extremism. Not John Bolton. He voted GOP in the Senate organization. That's it. As someone mentioned, he repeatedly intimated that he might jump to the Dems. In short, Chafee is a sore point and the battle is over. So why is McCain bringing it up?
To hit back at CFG? That seems pretty dumb. CFG has been at the core of the fight for free market/low tax economic conservatism. What is McCain thinking? He needs to make peace with economic conservatives. Even if CFG plans to make his life difficult, McCain's best bet is to do what he HAD been doing-namely, ignore the critics and inch toward a supply-side position on key issues, and get leading economic conservatives like Kyl and Gramm to sing his praises. Instead he "punches down", going after a mere interest group.
I don't see a third party run. Not against Giuliani or McCain's buddy Fred Thompson. What political territory would he stake out? Where's the winning coalition? Perhaps he could go indy against Romney, but Romney still is way behind McCain. So a 3rd party run seems incredibly foolish when he currently runs second to Giuliani, a frontrunner who has not been tested yet.
There has to be a simpler explanation. This smells like campaign disorganization and a dangerous lack of self-discipline on the part of the candidate.
What's most remarkable is that McCain had to know that elements of the base were going to oppose him. The obvious strategy was to ignore those folks and to reach out to any and all conservatives who would give him a hearing. Now he's back to square one in convincing economic conservatives.
While I often like the Club for Growth, I do have a problem with their attack on Northeastern GOP Senators that result in lost Senate seats.
I agree with the second comment above that says if all GOP candidates followed the COG that we'd have a 70-30 DEMOCRATIC majority.
Don't get me wrong. If we're talking about the midwest (Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho) or the South (Georgia, SC), then bring it on COG.
If you're talking about Maine, Pennsylvania, etc then I'll take ANYONE who puts an "(R)" after their name. I'd love to have Chaffee (assuming he would have stayed an R) in the Senate right now. I love the Maine sisters because they keep us within one vote of the majority and of getting more and better judges confirmed.
Current preferences for President:
1) Fred Thompson
2) Mitt Romney
3) Rudy Guiliani
4) John McCain
5) Newt Gingrich
It actually doesn't matter if McCain is right or wrong regarding Chafee and the Club for Growth. The point is that he's set up a pattern of snubbing many major conservative think-tanks and power brokers. What is this, his fourth no-show at a major conservative gathering? The perception of the base will inevitably be that he doesn't care about us and thinks he doesn't need our votes. If he doesn't want to accept the CFG's invitation, fine. But associating himself with Lincoln Chafee in the process does not seem to be a wise choice if he wants the support of any part of the base, which for the most part is glad to be rid of Chafee--right or wrong, that's the way it is.
And besides, if McCain truly believes that the CFG was powerful enough to single-handedly cost Chafee his election, then doesn't he believe that they're powerful enough to negatively affect his own presidential bid? Just seems dumb to me for him to invoke Chafee of all people. He just guaranteed that the CFG and all who support it will turn against him, if they hadn't already.
Not to be rude, but I grew up in PA, and for the most part it has been the Republican Party leadership's movement away from the Conservative Principles that the Club for Growth advocate, which has hurt the party in PA during in 2006. See the "Payjacking" Scandal and the fact that Toomey used to represent a district in PA.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
First, I must say on an intellectual level there is nothing wrong with assessing a candidate’s record on spending and taxes. Certainly these issues will constitute a major part of the 2008 election discussion. However, these should be part of a comprehensive evaluation on all issues within the plethora of POTUS responsibilities.
Unfortunately, CFG fails to take that into account and therefore makes a monumental mistake. First, it further perpetuates characterizations theirs is a myopic perspective, ignorant of the broader spectrum necessary to achieve balance. Second, it appears somewhat provincial when CFG litters a report with nomenclature such as “aberration” if a candidate votes against their set of measured issues. It has been my experience this leads some spectators to severely discount their analysis as jaded opining or rhetoric.
I read the Toomey WSJ piece when first published and found it shameless self promotion. Perhaps it makes sense to Pat that he should be out there singularly attacking Republican candidates as a means of promoting his “White Papers”. Quite frankly I am no big McCain fan, but if I read that WSJ piece my reaction is the same; flame CFG.
Unless stage 2 of the “White Papers” is an individual examination of Democrat contenders which is ultimately compared and contrasted against Republicans, I fail to see the value. Unfortunately, at this time it appears to speak more about the overt internal criticism endemic to our party today, then anything else.
Make no mistake; this next election will be about a lot of issues. But unless we are willing to compromise and agree together on a candidate best representing all of this electorates major concerns, I can make one prescient opine. Keep stoking the wilderness fires, because we will be out here for awhile.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
The Club for Growth is an interest group that is ONLY interested in economic policy. They are NOT an extension of the Republican National Committee. They have no party loyalty, they only have loyalty to economic policies that foster growth and prosperity.
Voters should use Club for Growth's rating as a part of their overall evaluation of a candidate, but it is not The Club for Growth's duty to evaluate a candidate on anything other than his or her commitment to economic freedom and prosperity.
I personally, think that this is very, very important. If you don't, then that's up to you.
"Do I want a president who will pursue policies that will make the nation richer or poorer?" Gee...I dunno. That's a tough one.
The CFG is interested in policies that are good for economic growth. This past election cycle they supported a Democrat from Texas, Henry Cuellar, in his House District primary race because he would be better for economic growth than his Democratic opponent.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/earmarxists.php
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
CFG may not be Republican, but it's goals align best with fiscal conservatism. It's telling that McCain can't get along with them.
You’ll have to forgive me for being a political neophyte. After all, you appear so good at this. Let’s see;
“An extension of the RNC
Thanks for clarifying that as a PAC, CFG is not part of the RNC(that’s sarcasm, not an affirmation Kemosabe). I fail to see where I stated or implied that; but no matter it fits the egregiously meandering defense of CFG.
“They have no party loyalty”
Gee, this is from their mission statement
‘The primary tactic of the separate Club for Growth PAC is to provide financial support from Club members to viable pro-growth candidates to Congress, particularly in Republican primaries”
Oh yeah and they might want to fix their Google intro should your statement be true.
Voters should use Club for Growth's rating as a part of their overall evaluation of a candidate
Thanks for furthering my point. I would only add should they continue a proclivity to continue high profile assaults on Republicans and use parochially damaging nomenclature; it should be a very small part. There are plenty of other places one can get a sense of each candidates voting and outlook on economic policies. Plus, I missed the point where they suggest that economic policy should be one measure of a candidate.
Perhaps if a candidate promotes “economic freedom and prosperity” better than anyone else, yet wants to murder every fifth person as a means of population control they would endorse him/her? Silly right? Exactly my point.
In an apparent rush to defend CFG and claim I was thoughtless, you missed my cogency. I don’t like repeating myself, so read the last paragraph.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Murder as a rule is contrary to economic growth (it decreases the labor supply). Population control is also not as a rule consistent with economic growth (I am not aware of any Conservative that advocates for it), but it is consistent with the agendas of those (socialists, progressives, communists, fans of Thomas Malthus, etc.) that oppose economic growth.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
of party affiliation are Pat Toomey's words for why the CFG PAC endorsed Henry Cuellar, Democrat. The mission statement does not exclude CFG from supporting Democrats. I'm not rushing to defend CFG or anybody else. I am just pointing out the obvious truth that CFG does not have any loyalty to any political party.
You can think less of them for their lack of loyalty if you want to, but they are not hypocritical about their pro-growth principles.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/01/club_for_growth_pac_endorses_h.php
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Trust me, I don't think you could withstand a more focused criticism, so I would be greatful that you only got a "meandering" one. LOL
1. The Club for Growth is not the RNC, RNCC, or RSC. You stated that The Club for Growth should look at a candidate as a whole, not just a candidate's economic positions. This flies in the face of the fact that they are an economic policy SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP! It is the job of the RNC, RNCC, and RNSC to find and recruit candidates based on each candidate "as a whole." But as an economic policy special interest group, The Club for Growth's only concern is...economic policy. Therefore, by suggesting that they should instead act more like a general party-affirming organization, supporting candidates who aren't very good on economic policy but perhaps decent on balance, you were basically saying that they should be more like a private extension of the RNC - or, perhaps, more accurately, the RNCC and RNSC.
2. The Club for Growth Has No Party Loyalty. Yes, The Club for Growth gets "particularly" involved in Republican primaries because the Republican Party is "particularly" more pro-growth, in general, than the Democrat Party. They are working hard to be sure that this continues to be the case by attempting to win open primaries with steller pro-growth candidates and knocking off Republicans who are economic populists with pro-growth challengers. However, if there was theoretically some economic all-star who happened to be a Democrat (lets say Nancy Pelosi on social issues, Jeff Flake on economic issues) running against an economic populist who happened to be a Republican (lets take Lincoln Chafee for example,) there is little to no doubt in my mind that The Club for Growth would back the Democrat in the general election in that race. In fact, they'd probably do it with glee and gusto.
The NRA is the model on this. They've effectively taken gun-control off the table by backing pro-gun Democrats. They still prefer to see the GOP in control of congress because the GOP is more 2nd Amendment friendly than the Democrat Party, but when there is a Democrat who is good on the 2nd Amendment, they back him/her.
3. Evaluating Candidates. You're point was not that voters should use the Club for Growth's ratings as part of an overall evaluation. You're point was that The Club for Growth should perform some comprehensive evaluation, taking into account other things about the candidate that don't directly affect economic freedom. They absolutely should not, and to suggest that they should is completely rediculous. This only comes into play in small part when they decide to make endorsements when they consider whether or not the candidate could possibly be elected if given the resources that often come with The Club for Growth's endorsement. Otherwise, it is up to voters to say, "he's worse on economic policy than other candidates, but he's better on other policy that I care about than the other candidates." People like me, who feel that after nominating great judges, there is no policy more important than economic policy, tend to prioritize Club for Growth ratings quite high.
4. Killing every 5th person and population control are both decidedly anti-growth policies, which seems to accurately sum up your finite grasp of the issues you're blathering about. However, lets assume that this candidate had some other position that was some sort of anethma to most people but was otherwise steller on economic policy. Well, in that case, The Club for Growth would probably just withhold an endorsement if there was no one else in the race that was good on economic policy, because part of the calculation that they make on endorsements is that the candidate can actually win if given the proper resources.
5. It's troubling, if not surprising, that someone would be so quick to try to compromise the future economic prosperity of this nation instead of fight on principle. That type of thinking is exactly what caused so many to become disenchanted with the 12-years of GOP congressional governance. There was too much compromising and not enough fighting on principle. It was a fight, a conservative revolution that brought us power and brought us out of the wilderness. It was docile compromises that put us there to begin with, and it was lack of fidelity to our cause in governance that put us back there today.
I agree with you 99.98%. The only thing that I disagree with you about is your reference to the Club for Growth as a special interest group. The Club for Growth is not a special interest group (it is a pressure group, but that is different). Special interest groups attempt to use the coercive power of government to forcibly provide a select group of individuals with the unearned property of others. The Club does not advocate such actions and as a result it is not a special interest group.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I haven't really contemplated the difference, and one day I may ponder the semantics of this. For now, I'll just go with it because I see what you are saying. :-)
As a fan of the Club For Growth, I think they made a strategic mistake in the Chafee election as well. They should focus on open seat primaries and possibly Rs in heavy R districts (see MI-07). Attacking R incumbents in RI was a poor decision and I don't criticize McCain for pointing that out.
However, it would help McCain to recognize the benefit of the CfG's effort to fight earmarking and electing conservatives who oppose such pork barreling. McCain has done much that CfG should be happy to talk about, but both CfG and McCain seem to prefer a squabble.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
And thus lies the biggest problem I've had with McCain over the last 7 years. To me, it seems that he goes out of his way to bash Republicans/conservatives instead of working on areas where we have agreements, and vice versa when dealing with Democrats/liberals.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
Amen. Chafee was busy with an axe trying to chop down the center pole last time I looked.
As I said, McCain is doing himself no favors with the base by expressing sympathy for Chafee at this point in time. Most of us believe Chafee was a RINO who got what he deserved. CFG may have helped bring him down, but I maintain that it was Chafee who did the most damage to himself.
Even though I consider myself a "big tent" Republican, I like the tactics used by the Club for Growth. I want "comfortable" Republicans to be scared into voting the right way and believe me, Republicans are scared after seeing the scalps the Club for Growth has taken.
Also, because the Club for Growth is an organization concerned with fiscal policy, Republicans should have NO issue with the organizations goals. Lower taxes and less government spending is one goal ALL Republicans in a big tent should share.
I would be critical of a social conservative advocacy group that went after pro-choice Republican incumbents, especially since a Republican has to be pro-choice if they want to have any shot of winning in the Northeast, but all Republican should be advocating sound fiscal policies.
Lincoln Chafee was truly one of the those rare occassions where I'm glad the Republican lost, he was to the left of most Democrats in the Senate. We are much better off without him, and he would have jumped ship in a 50-50 Senate anyway.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The two things for which the G.O.P. has traditionally (and quite properly) stood - I remember those days, BTW - are lower taxes and smaller government. Ergo, Chafee deserved the boot (and John McCain seems to be itching for the same treatment with his remarks). The CfG is a net plus. McCain should know that.
I'll allow room for regional differences in social policy, but fidelity to the principles of the Club for Growth is something that every Republican from every corner of the country should have widespread agreement on.
I keep looking for reasons our junior senator should continue to call himself a Republican.
When he pulled a party hack out of the senate office in Salem to help him run his political operation, I'm not so sure he pulled the right one.
Now the junior senator is doing everything he can to disassociate himself with the mainstream of the state's Republican party. The impact in the general election will be felt, since his candidacy will not encourage voters to come out and support him during the primary. It's usually considered wise to get out the vote in the primary, even if unopposed, to get voters used to voting for you.
I don't see a lot of common sense in the current campaign for re-election. But that's what you get when you hire the wrong hack.
Just about any D, even Wu, could/can beat Smith today. He's be wise to jump ship now.
Rereading the whole thread, I think we're missing the point.
CFG is an interest group that promotes a specific set of ideals. So is CATO, so is the RMSP, etc. The specifics of the ideals that any of these groups support all tend to have some level of traction within the Republican party and the groups range from liberal social groups, liberal spending groups, self-styled "middle of the road" groups, libertarian groups to very conservative groups.
If we accept the concept that politics is really a war of ideas, then we have to recognize that each of the groups offer some type of ammunition in the war, even though some of the ideas are diametrically opposed to one another.
My point here is this. Would be candidates should be willing to address interest groups on the merit of their ideals and ideas. Rudy showed up at CPAC even though his positions are not in a high level of harmony with many of the attendees. He addressed issues and was treated very respectfully and thoughtfully. McCain couldn't be bothered.
I would expect every would be candidate to be willing to engage in a discussion of their positions v. the ideals of any given interest group. So far, there is only one candidate who has consistently refused to do that. John McCain.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
You are right on the money. The Club for Growth is not part of the GOP and has a right to support any candidate they choose. The biggest problem I have with McCain is he doesnt believe these groups should be allowed to express their ideas to the public. But, like you said, this is nothing new for McCain and his comments are not at all surprising.
Forgive me if someone else has already said the following; I find it hard to believe that Chafee would have remained a Republican if he was one of 50 Republicans. I think he would have pulled a Jeffords in that instance. The only way Chafee would have remained loyal to the party that defended him in the primary is if there were at least 51 total Republicans in the senate. I think he would have loved it if he could hand the senate over to Harry Reid.
And if Chafee had been elected and stayed (R), he would have used the threat of jumping as a cudgel to make Senate Republicans kiss his hiney at every opportunity. He would have made them bribe him into every single vote and kow-tow to him to make him stay (R). He would have loved the feeling of power it would have given him. Good riddance.
McCain has a long history of publically blasting from afar anyone who disagrees with him. Whatever you might say about Rudy Giuliani, he at least went to CPAC. I understand he is also going to CfG.
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..." 'IF' by Rudyard Kipling
I love you, man. I might vote for you. But you've lost the faith when it comes to the Club for Growth. If we had a Senate full of people who meet the CfG's standards, we might actually advance the agenda. Is it better to have a useless majority now or a majority that can actually agree to do something later?