Disband the NRSC
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2006 — Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There may have been a time when the NRSC served a valuable function: accepting money from donors who believe generally in Republican principles, but don't have the time or attention to determine which candidates are most worthy and/or needful of their support. This year's debacle in Rhode Island, coupled with the ascendancy of the blogosphere, has convinced me that while the NRCC and RNC may yet have important roles to play, the time for the NRSC has come and gone.
More below...
I'm quite sure that Elizabeth Dole is feeling fully vindicated this morning; after all, she's successfully defended the most liberal Republican in the Senate from a conservative primary challenger, and it only cost her $1.2 million in hard money (and untold amounts of soft money, I'm sure) to do it. Oh yeah, and also, she accomplished this great "victory" by mobilizing the 72-hour machine to turn out Democrats against a Republican. While I can't sneer enough at the strategic idiocy involved, some will argue that in a close election, every Republican seat matters, and the NRSC is tasked with getting elected Republicans after all. Sometimes, these hard choices have to be made.
In response, as I've said over and over, the fact that 2006 is sure to be a close race actually indicates that the money might perhaps be used to defend Jim Talent or Rick Santorum instead. Nevertheless, strategic differences will happen, and someone has to make the final call, and the fact that I'm obviously right doesn't change the fact that someone else has been tasked to make that decision. Fine. What makes me really angry, however, is not that Elizabeth Dole made a stupid strategy call, it's that the money she spent came from somewhere. It came from donors who believe in certain things; maybe it's lower taxes, maybe it's support for the war, maybe it's being pro-life, maybe it's smaller government, who knows? The point is that Lincoln Chafee supports none of those things. These people forewent putting their money to economically productive activities or towards their own personal satisfaction in order to accomplish something; running attack ads on Steve Laffey was just not it.
The larger point, however, is that Senate elections, in particular, have become things of national attention, and the tools exist that anyone who wants to know where the important races and good candidates are can become informed literally in a matter of minutes. With the rise of organizations like ABC Pac, which have handy websites with a slate of candidates that you can evaluate on your own and make an individual contribution to, the justification for a "donate and let someone else decide where it goes" organization like the NRSC - especially given its activity over the last two years - is rather slim.
The NRSC is distinguishable from the NRCC because it's virtually impossible even for someone who's thoroughly plugged in to politics to have a comprehensive picture of the strategic necessities involved in keeping a House majority. House members just aren't in the news, their positions aren't as public, and generally speaking incumbents in trouble don't get nearly as much coverage. That's not to say that the NRCC is a perfect organization (although its hard to argue with their success), or that everyone will always agree with everything that they do. The difference is, the function they perform is still necessary for everyone who doesn't follow House races for a living.
The good news is that the NRSC's suspect activities in Rhode Island have been so widely publicized that they have effectively dug their own grave. I don't know anyone who is even marginally paying attention who intends to donate to the NRSC, rather than individual candidates this year. I know I won't. Perhaps if someone with a marginal degree of competence takes the reins in 2007 (Sununu?), the NRSC can start rehabilitating its image and earn back the trust of people who saw their hard-earned dollars used to turn out Democrats against a Republican in Rhode Island - but the question still remains of whether the whole structure is even necessary.
With the information available today, I contend that it is not.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Cardin Wins — Comments (4) »
Disband the NRSC 39 Comments (0 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The most difinitive trait of the libs at Kos you decry is an inability to read, or an unwillingness to engage a discussion on what has actually been said. For instance:
Just because Republican candidates win who you don't like, you would rather lose elections and let the libs back into power- in the middle of the most important struggle of our lives.
This is something I never said nor implied; not in this post, nor anywhere. In fact, I expressly said that I would be donating to Talent and Santorum (and also Steele, probably one other, and the NRCC before this is all over). I have no interest in letting the Democrats back in power, which was the point of this post. By spending oodles of money defending Lincoln Chafee, who opposes the Bush tax cuts, has never met a piece of pork he didn't like, is pro-abortion, and opposed to the war on terror, she took money away from rock-solid senators who are in just as much (or more) trouble from Democrats.
Republican dollars ought to support Republicans - which means more than simply having an "R" after the candidate's name.
If Chafee could be counted on on any "hot" issue, then there'd be at least one reason to want him to succeed.
But you can't find that reason on policy - if the issue is close, Chafee is going to vote against us.
So you're left with one vote - "Majority Leader."
And on that one, you either don't need him or won't be able to count on him.
If his vote isn't needed to keep Republicans in the majority, he'll vote with us; if it is - if he can swing the Senate to the Democrats - then he'll sell us out just like Jeffords did.
Chafee wears his "R" the way a lot of folks wear their faith - they claim it, but it has no influence on how they live their lives.
In the end, you can't count on those people.
D/R ratios on various Senate committees. Judiciary's 10-8 right now, yes? And I believe that back in 2004 it was 10-9? So we go back to a scenario where one GOP Senator can hold up a judicial nomination by deadlocking the committee...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
as you could also go to a situation where the Dems are in control. Two months is still a long time but whatever Chafee's faults he is still another R for purposes of control - much more important than roadblocks he might present in any one committee.
and the same applies to governing - I would always take 70% today and come back next year to battle on the remainder than walk away with next to nothing or so poison the waters that future battles which should be relatively mundane become epic.
To me, the really unforgiveable thing was going negative, hard, against Laffey. Laffey was a successful and charismatic mayor of a Democratic city. A party that wants to build for the future would have regarded him as an asset - a guy who, even if he loses this race, could maybe use the increased visibility to challenge Reed in the future, or maybe run for governor if the current GOP governor doesn't get re-elected. I can't imagine the bench of good Republicans in Rhode Island is all that deep; the NRSC flagrantly and repeatedly violated Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment to do what it could to make Laffey radioactive in future races.
Mean and stupid is a bad combination.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It was here the line was crossed. And if what I have read about the NRCC and the Arizona CD8 nominee is true (it opposed him and reportedly won't support him in the primary, according to some reports), it needs to go as well. I'll be checking and posting a diary based on what I find out.
Snap out of it.
The last thing we need is another round of sniping and second guessing. We are in a campaign with the candidates we have.
We will either win or lose. We are Republicans, and we need to remember and live by the 11th commandment.
I take it for granted that there's pretty much no one here who will say that Chafee is a good Senator, but that's not the point. I'm not particularly upset that Laffey lost - the source of my anger is that money was wasted here that could have gone toward other races; money that was donated by people who certainly didn't want it being used for this.
I'm sure some money was donated that fits that bill. But your average NRSC solicitation and gift focuses a lot more on overall Republican performance at the ballot box in November - not June or August. And considering the incumbent re-election rate (oh, and EVERY Rhode Island-specific poll) for the Senate, can we really fault the NRSC for supporting the incumbent?
I'm not sure why any of this should be surprising (except, I'll grant - the tone and negativity in the race, that's why I won't give money to any of the committees until after primaries are over) - the committees support incumbents as the best chance to increase majorities.
That's their job.
Agreed.
In fact, I'll go further - had Elizabeth Dole not acted, she would have been derelict in her duties as chairman of the NRSC.
She deserves to be commended for making a difficult decision and sticking with it despite the flak she took from all sources. Sometimes leaders have to make decisions in which the right choice is one they know some of their supporters will be ticked off.
The good ones make the right choice anyway.
Does it say anything about savaging fellow Republicans with negative ads and supporting those who have been publicly disloyal to the party and the President for reelection.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
And this isn't by far the first time either. Two years ago, they did pretty much the exact same thing in Pennsylvania to save Arlen Specter's bacon. (Remember Pat Toomey?) Calling a Republican group on stomping all over Reagan's 11th Commandment is a different matter than stomping on it one's-self.
We need to raise holy heck now or else they're going to do the same thing in 2008 with Ted Stevens. Mark my words.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Taking the example of the RI primary and extrapolating it to the very function of the NRSC doesn't show a lot of thoughtful examination of what the NRSC is - or should be. Nor does it take into account the very role of parties themselves - in a strategic or tactical (or even regulatory McCain-Feingold kind of way) way.
The NRSC isn't the most important thing when it comes to Republican fates in the Senate. But it IS an important one. From infrastructure to money to candidate recruitment.
So complain about Rhode Island - but understand that while Laffey got completely screwed - at the same time if Santorum wins, the NRSC will in fact play an important role in that victory.
(bottom line: feel free to snipe at Liddy for not doing her job - or having misplaced priorities, and by all means give money directly to candidates - but lets not toss baby with bathwater.)
I defer to your superior campaign experience, but I disagree that just because the NRSC currently performs all these functions, that it has to in the future. I agree that it's not going to go away tomorrow, but as we move forward, there's no reason not to strive for a structure that allows people to direct - at the very least - some degree of what their money will be used for.
(bottom line: feel free to snipe at Liddy for not doing her job - or having misplaced priorities, and by all means give money directly to candidates - but lets not toss baby with bathwater.)
As I recall, you were the ones who said donor should get their money back from the NRSC.
But lets also be clear - I'm actually willing to lose a Senate seat like Chafee's in order to move the entire caucus to the right. And, frankly - I should have been more clear about to whom I was speaking.
That's not the NRSC's job, however. Their job is to win - even for crappy Republicans.
the fact that it's a party committee gives it distinct advantages in terms of money raised and spent under the law.
(think of all the fun they had beating up Daschle - we certainly don't begrudge them that..)
Chafee believes none of these things.
But a Republican-majority Senate does. And a Democrat-majority Senate would not.
And that's the frame for making the decision.
The NRSC should not get involved in primaries? And just support the Republican in the general.
Is that viable?
---
This is my sig.
There are many like it.
But this one is mine.
Why is the Republican Party and an elected Member of Leadership (ie: big tent republicans) spending my hard earned cash on going negative against other republicans? The NRSC crossed serious lines in this race, and frankly it is very very disconcerting that they aren’t getting slapped around a bit. Because they should be.
Even more disturbing is that the NRSC ran ads that were in direct contradiction of the platform that they vowed to uphold. The party should not go negative against the party.
Their negative ads in a primary smack of elitism, and are contradictory to what republicanism is. Just because you are in power (by inheritance and nepotism) doesn’t mean that you have any more right to be a Senator than some other citizen.
The NRSC is not the Club for Growth, the Main Street Partnership or the NRA or a group founded on some narrow group of principles, all those organizations are supposed to get involved in primaries and go negative on anyone they want to at any time. But the Party should be held to a different standard. The party could even say nice things about Chafee… but they didn’t have any nice things to say.
- JG
Your argument doesn't make much sense at any level. You say: "the justification for a 'donate and let someone else decide where it goes' organization like the NRSC - especially given its activity over the last two years - is rather slim."
That's true only for political junkies who follow lots of different races and prefer to select the specific candidates that they want to support. Fine, go ahead, if that's your preference. But you overestimate greatly the time and energy many people willing to contribute to a political party generally, or concerned about legislative elections at a macro level only, want to spend on these activities. You make that point about the House elections, and there is no doubt some truth in your contention that elections for the Senate generally get a higher profile. But you are kidding yourself if you think political donors generally are all or even mainly junkies for whom the higher priority is picking and supporting individual candidates in Senate elections based on their positions on specific issues, rather than folks for whom the main priority (and their only interest in out-of-state legislative elections) is to make sure that the Dems don't take control of the Senate.
There are many politically informed and generally conservative Republicans, for whom control of the Senate is more important than the merits or demerits of contending candidates in a primary. That you're not one of them is no reason to suggest that such a group is not out there. You say: "The good news is that the NRSC's suspect activities in Rhode Island have been so widely publicized that they have effectively dug their own grave. I don't know anyone who is even marginally paying attention who intends to donate to the NRSC, rather than individual candidates this year." That argument will be persuasive only to those who, for one reason or another, prefer to see a Dem win in RI than to support a not-very- conservative candidate who has a real shot in a deep blue state. Unlike you, I would much rather see Chafee (or someone else who has a chance of winning) be nominated than a true blue but unelectable conservative. And unlike you, I generally don't contribute to single candidate funds, preferring to support the RNC.
When you say you "don't know anyone who is even marginally paying attention who intends to donate to the NRSC, rather than individual candidates this year," I think you may just be saying that you would benefit from wider associations within Republican circles. When I hear statements like that, I can't help thinking back to the (perhaps apocryphal) comment attributed to Pauline Kael about not understanding how Nixon could have won since she did not know a single person who voted for him.
The larger issue raised by your post gets to the difference between the Republican party and the conservative movement. If the Republican party is to be competitive in all sections of the country, it will never be entirely a conservative club even though it will probably always remain a mostly conservative organization. New England is the obvious case in point nationally, as was NY State for the last twelve years at the state level. Except for NH, and even there the ground is changing, recognizably conservative candidates don't normally win in New England. Yet there are currently five Republican US Senators elected in New England. Another not very conservative Republican running this year is Kean in NJ, and he has a real shot at winning a Senate seat for a Rep in NJ for the first time literally in decades. There are three Rep House members in CT facing strong opposition, all of whom have abandoned the nominal Rep candidate for the Senate and are supporting Lieberman. For many years NY State has had a Republican state senate and for 12 years a Rep governor (many Reps are not happy with what he has done, but he was certainly better than the Dem alternative), and for 14 years NYC has had a Republican mayor (ditto). Those who don't like Chafee are unlikely to be impressed with Snowe or Collins or Pataki or Bloomberg or perhaps even Guiliani. But that's what elected (electable) Republicans look like in this part of the country.
One of the subtexts of your "disband the NRSC" post is that the Republicans should just write off the Northeast, as they have pretty much already done for Presidential elections, since the typical Rep candidate in the Northeast is far from a conservative and votes quite differently from Southern or Western Republicans once elected. I recognize that you don't say that, but phrasing the problem in terms of "the NRSC's suspect activities in Rhode Island" is more than half way to that conclusion. Suffice it to say that I think of politics as a more practical exercise, the first element of which is the necessity of winning elections before you get a chance to wield power in support of particular policy goals. Without the not-very-conservative Rep members of Congress elected from the Northeast, there would never have been a Republican Congress in the first place, and thus never any reason to worry about the Rep Party's ability to hold on to it.
First of all, Republicans are at least competitive in 2 other races in the Northeast this year (Santorum and Kean), plus Steele if you count Maryland as Northeast, which it is politically if not culturally. Anyway, name an issue on which we can depend on Chaffee. He's significantly to the left of Snowe, Collins, and Specter, which is saying quite a bit.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Well, the one thing Chafee will certainly do, and that his Dem opponent will not do (and Laffey, if he had been nominated, could not have gotten himself elected to do), is to vote to organize the Senate with the home team in charge. That's not an "issue" in the policy sense, but without it, you're not likely to see anything coming out of the Senate in the next two years on any specific issues that you are likely to find palatable. Among other things, a win for the Rep team in RI may be the difference between Chairman Coburn, Coleman and McConnell rather than Chairman Kennedy, Kerry and Clinton. Why do politically savvy people have such trouble with that idea?
The RNSC thinks that this basic fact is what makes it important to support Chafee. It's the same fact that got Santorum (and Bush) to campaign for Specter against Toomey. Given that politics is a very result-oriented exercise, I don't see much to complain about here. Those who disagreed were free to contribute to Laffey (or Toomey), and work for their election. As far as I observed, no one was proposing to drive those folks out of the Rep tent if they did so, and Santorum would dearly like to have their help and support this go-around. It's a pity that so many Toomey folks are sulking on the sidelines rather than pitching in to help re-elect Santorum. (In contrast, there was never any doubt that, if Toomey had won, Santorum would have supported him 100% in the general election.)
I also disagree with the folks on this string who insist that the RNSC (or the Club for Growth) should always stay out of primaries. One of the points of having political leaders in a political party is that they should lead the party in some useful direction. The people running the RNSC (and the RNC and even the Club for Growth) qualify, on any sensible scale, as political leaders. SO what's the big deal with their trying to exercise some leadership, in an effort to win elections which will eventually allow for the adoption of sensible policies rather than the alternatives offered by the Dem team? No one has to agree or follow where they are trying to lead. Given the fractious nature of politics, it's obvious that many won't. And, it goes without saying that such political leaders need to use extreme care in deciding to get involved in any primary. (I think the RNSC and the RNC has a better record on that score than the Club for Growth.)
But accepting all of that, I don't get all the angst about political leaders trying to exercise a little leadership, especially where as here it's all about trying to preserve a Rep seat in the Senate from a state that rarely votes for the Rep team on the federal level (like Mass, NJ and NY, though, RI has enough native corruption that it often opts for the Rep team at the state level). For those who think that the issue here is the importance of the RNC or the RNSC's staying out of primaries, can you name another field of endeavor where leaders are chosen and then expected not to try to provide some leadership in situations like this?
1. The first half of this comment has merit, and perhaps I am overestimating the political involvment of the average donor. However, I think it's going up in any case, and I think that those who aren't informed of what went on in Rhode Island, wouldn't like it if they were.
2. The second half of your comment, on the other hand, goes way off the mark. I don't like most of the Nor'Easterners, but I recognize that they're necessary. I really wouldn't have had a problem with the NRSC spending money on Chafee in the general (although I'd still rather have it spend on other Republicans) - my beef was their involvement in a primary, on behalf of a "Republican" who is not just a maverick, but genuinely does not vote as Republicans do, and that they did so in a viciously negative manner (which they had to do, because let's face it - there's not a whole lot of positive stuff to say about Linc Chafee). So now they've spent over a million, and Chafee's still in deep trouble, and Steve Laffey is finished in Rhode Island. This is not what a national committee should do.
The general sense here is that the NRSC was trying to send a message to CFG about messing with Republican primaries; I don't understand why they think they ought to have more of a say. As it happens, the number one Republican Senator I'd like to target is Ted Stevens (who isn't from the Northeast), and if a groundswell movement gets started to mount a primary fight, the national committee ought to buzz off. Or at least not tear down a fresh face on the local scene.
I realize that Chafee probably presents the best chance to win Rhode Island; fine. I just don't think his voting record merits anything more than support in the general. The ridiculous sums spent by the NRSC beating up Chafee in the primary are the only issue for me, here.
Becuase you seem to be taking the heat rather well, and sparking a worthwile discussion in the process.
Well done.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
If the NRSC won't stay out of Republican Primaries then disband it.
------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the IRS and all payroll taxes! http://www.fairtax.org
The simple answer is that anyone who doesn't like the way the NRSC goes about things simply need not donate to it. Their goal is to secure a GOP majority -their goal is NOT to impose idiological purity. I don't like the way the Club for Growth spends lots of money in GOP primaries either - as a result I don't donate to it despite the fact that I am very much on board with their economic ideas.
I have become more and more cross with this idea that the 'true' GOP exists all the way on the hard right side of the spectrum - it seems to me if you drew a line between Chafee and Brownback, whereever the middle of that way, that would be closer to the true GOP. The NRSC has one job - to sit as many GOP butts in Senate chairs. They did their job this time and they did it well. I've never donated to that branch of the GOP before, but I did today.
It isn't their job to tear apart fellow Republicans. It also isn't their job to waste resources on a candidate who has proved his disloyalty and can't even be counted on to support our Presidential candidates in a general election or to vote with us on an organizing vote, should we need him for one.
The NRSC has one job - to sit as many GOP butts in Senate chairs.
So where do you draw the line? If really was the operating theory, why aren't we recruiting Teddy Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, and Barbara Boxer types who "can win" to run in blue states? We could have a massive majority if we didn't stand for anything and just looked for candidates that "can win."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I don't at all accept that Chaffe is disloyal - for sure he's the most liberal member of the GOP in the Senate, but why does that make him disloyal? As long as he votes with the GOP on organizing votes, he is loyal. I know that he didn't vote for Bush in 2004, but so what? He didn't vote for Kerry and he probably made himself more electable by doing it. Does anyone think his vote cost Bush the RI electoral votes?
I had not noticed Ted Kenedy or Barbara Boxer expressing interest in caucasing with the GOP - I have a hard time imagining them voting for Mitch as Majority Leader somehow.
btw, I would have had just as much problem if a moderate GOP had run for Santorum's seat in PA as I did with Laffey in RI - this isn't the time to be screwing around with costly primaries. I do not accept these idiological hard lines that people want to throw around. There is as much room for Chafee as there is for Brownback in the GOP from where I sit.
I know that he didn't vote for Bush in 2004, but so what?
That is pretty much the textbook definition of disloyal. I don't know what further proof you could want. Is Jeffords still a loyal Republican in your book? Was he a loyal Republican up until the minute he defected to the other side? If you can't support our Presidential candidate in the general election, it is pretty clear you can't be counted on for anything else.
I had not noticed Ted Kenedy or Barbara Boxer expressing interest in caucasing with the GOP
Of course, none of the "win at any cost" crowd will address this. They refuse to draw the line *anywhere*. Obviously we do not need Teddy or Barbara themselves. If we wanted to build our party that way, we could certainly find plenty of random nutcases on the left that would take our money to run as Republicans. Under the "winning is all that matters and we can't win as Republicans in the blue states" theory of life, we should certainly be doing this. We could become the US version of the Mexican PRI and own the government, standing for nothing except staying in power and enriching ourselves in the process. It worked for them for a pretty long time.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Well, if I were to draw the line myself, it might cut a few people on the extreme right of the party off for being too much in favor of government intervention in private lives. But I'm not in the buisness of that - the GOP party leaders are. While you can't stop a David Duke from running GOP, you can make it clear when you don't approve. There is no way that Chafee is simply too far to the left to be disqualified as Republican. Kennedy and Boxer are from where I (and I think most reasonable Republicans) sit.
You might want to draw the line further over to make the party more 'pure' but your opinion in not the opinion of the party leaders.
I frankly don't care what the big wigs think... assuming they are even all on the same page, which is likely not the case. And just because they think a certain way does not mean they are right. They are not infailable. Not even close.
You may be comfortable with smoke filled backrooms where candidates are annointed out of public sight, but that is not how the system is supposed to work. We have primaries for a reason. That reason is to let the people of the party, the rank and file, choose their candidate. If you want to cede all that authority to the party big shots, we might as well just eliminate the primary and caucus systems entirely, because it serves no purpose other than to waste money.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
The NRSC is worthless. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in an RI primary. That money should have gone towards defeating democrats.
We have tough races in Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The Chafee money should have been spent there.
------------------------------------------
48 hours before the election showed Blanchard leading John Engler by 14 points.
Final:
Engler 51%
Blanchard 49%
krempasky says..."if Santorum wins, the NRSC will in fact play an important role in that victory."...I suggest Santorum wouldn't be in the position of risk if it wasn't for the actions of the NRSC, the white house and the Republican party in general strong arming him to publicly support the re-election of Specter in '04...now you expect to give them credit for a problem they caused...yeah, right. They returned a RINO no on wanted to office and put a conservative seat at risk of going Democrat...Huzza huzza...praise be to the NRSC...
In my opinion the Republican party is going to be returned to minority status, possibly in November '06 and most certainly by election day November '08 and the reasons that will happen is evidenced here by the posts of many "red staters" who buy the notion that its all about being elected or re-elected and begone with principles. The Republican party was given power in '94 because of its stated issues and principles. They cannot retain power by abandoning them, which they have done and even though the party leadership tends to think it can. There are not enough Republicans to accomplish that task without the conservative base. the libs won't vote Republican no matter how liberal it gets. I tell you now, and future events will prove it out, the base of the Party will not support the Republican party as it exists today, and shaking the "Pelosi as speaker" bogie man or some other such drivel won't get the base to the polls come election day. Principles are not principles if they can be compromised. It was principles that installed the Republicans in power it is lack of performing on those principles that will remove them.
To me and many other conservatives, its not about getting 100% of the principles that lead to the Republicans given power accomplished in law, but about 100% effort to do so. The party was given 12 years to make the effort. Instead they went Democrat light. The results of abandonment of principle will be evident come November. Its simply not possible to give the finger to those who put you in power and not expect them to remove you from power.
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." ....~ Albert Einstein
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."....~ Abraham Lincoln
With all due respect, you sound like the spoiled libs over at Kos who when they don't get their way want to take their toys and go home. Just because Republican candidates win who you don't like, you would rather lose elections and let the libs back into power- in the middle of the most important struggle of our lives! I really am tired of the "true believers" who would rather get 0% of what they want, than at least 70% of what the GOP wants by making compromises in our candidates.
United States Air Force
Cross Into the Blue