Don't forget to write your check to the NRSC
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (62) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With their brilliant strategy two years ago defending Linc Chafee, they've gone on and made sure that Mark Pryor (D-AR) will run without any Republican opposition.
We really need to keep sending them our money to they can keep setting up Democrats with no GOP opposition.
/sarcasm
Consider this an open thread.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Clintons Play the Race Card Yet Again — Comments (18) »
Don't forget to write your check to the NRSC 62 Comments (0 topical, 62 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...and I find it hard to believe that there isn't some ambitious conservative that wants to run for a US Senate seat.
I'm really pissed at Huckabee for not running here. It's all about him, not the issues he cares about - that's plain to see now.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Agree with you about some ambitious conservative. But, dissing Huckabee because he didn't want to run in the race is wrong. He said he wasn't interested in the race long, long ago so that the field was cleared for whoever wanted to run. I genernally don't blame politicians for doing what they said they would do (and not doing what they said they wouldn't do).
Don't shoot the messenger on this one. The reasoning was that Pryor was going to win anyway, so it's best if he doesn't run a campaign. If he were challenged, he'd run a full-scale campaign and turnout operation, which would drive Democrat turnout more than a Republican challenger would boost GOP turnout, thus helping the Democrat Presidential nominee.
as long as a dead girl doesn't show up in his bed.
It is his birthright and he will keep it as long as he wants it.
Tim Hutchison could have held this seat if he had not cheated on his wife, divorced her and then married his secretary or some other such nonsense. I believe Pryor probably would not have challenged it had Hutchison not done that. But now that he has it, he is going nowhere.
Blanche Lincoln will be a much better target in 2010. If Huck chose to run, he have a good shot at knocking her off. AR deserves better than her as she has done NOTHING while in the Senate. She is a waste of space that votes party line. Nothing more.
day and age. Maybe he was like 12 or something. But not if he was of age.
That is how much clout the Pryor name has in AR. Crazy, huh?
Even though I'm liberal, and would be an unlikely Republican voter, I believe it would be better if there were competition between the parties here. There's something to be said for simple accountability. It'd be nice to have our own Bobby Jindal, even if I wouldn't vote for him.
But the Arkansas GOP seems uninterested in promoting the few people it has with statewide appeal to run for statewide office. Rather than run someone like David Bisbee, they keep running people like Jim Bob Duggar and Jim Holt.
Yes, Blanche Lincoln is vulnerable, but unless you can get Huckabee to run, I don't see anyone out there who can beat here.
Do I still have the correct read on Pryor?
From what I remember studying political science at the UofA, the Pryor name is pretty much holy in AR. Has the luster worn off? I doubt it, but it would be worth your thoughts.
Unless you tell us otherwise, I stand by my statement that this seat is his for life.
He lost to the moron Blank-o. Then he won a house seat and now he's a Governor. Had he taken the attitude of I can't afford to lose and Blank-o is a "popular" Lt. Governor who is unbeatable, he probably would not be where he is now. Had the Republicans of Louisiana acted as Arkansas Republicans and waited for Buddy Roemer or Dave Treen to run for Governor and if they turned it down, hand the Dems the Governorship, we would be worse off.
I think it would take a special year (and this ain't it) and a strong candidate (like Huckabee) to beat Pryor. But, how about some young candidate getting his name out there by taking Pryor on this year. As I recall, Mark Warner got his start by LOSING to John Warner. But he ran reasonably well, got his name out there, and parlayed that into a Governorship and perhaps (although i sure hope not) a US Senate seat.
That's what we have to do as Republicans. Build our bench. So that we don't have to wait for a former Governor to run for the Senate and we he/she announces they aren't going to run, we do not have a candidate.
I'm not looking to pour resources into a non-winnable race, but I am willing to pour some resources into a race to establish name recognition for a candidate that perhaps could re-emerge 2,4, 6+ years down the road as a legitimate contender. That is the way we should be doing this instead of just handing left-wing incumbents a free pass in red/purple states.
If I was a Republican State Senator or House member in Arkansas, I would run against Pryor and slam him on social issues, particularly the issue of SCOTUS nominees. Will it get you 50.1% of the vote. No. But it will resonate with Arkansas voters who will remember you the next time you make a run AND it will perhaps force Pryor to take some conservative social positions that will anger the Democratic national party and be held as a promise he might be forced to keep when there is a SCOTUS opening.
The Republican bench in AR is pretty thin. That makes it hard.
And, in addition to Pryor having a birthright on the seat, he is a moderate dem. He was a member of the Gang of 14 and has voted against the dems at times regarding the war and Bush appointees. He is not the red meat throwing dem that would raise hackles in AR.
I don't know if Huck could have beat him.
in Tennessee. Lamar Alexander is going to be re-elected. Probably not a landslide but in the neighborhood of 58-42 I would predict. No one was going to run against him as a Democrat. None of the Dem House members. An attorney and former head of the Tennessee Democratic Party, Bob Tuke, announced a couple of weeks ago he is running. Will he beat Lamar? No chance in hell. But I guarantee you we will be hearing from Tuke again either in 2 years when the weaker Republican incumbent (Corker) is up for re-election or in 6 years when Lamar probably does not run for re-election (retires). That is what we need in Arkansas, South Dakota, Iowa, Montana, etc. As it is, we let Pryor, Johnson, Baucus and Harkin escape without having to even pretend to have a right of far-left bone in their voting bodies and without building a bench for future elections.
I think this cycle had the possible GOP candidates feeling defeated before they even start.
Sadly, given the bloodbath between Hillary! and BHO, I think the GOP might have had a better chance at taking some seats than I would have thought in Jan.
We definitely need a dynamic and stellar recruiter. Sadly, we don't have one right now.
In Arkansas, 3 of 4 House members, 3/4 state legislature, and all 7 statewide constitutional offices are held by Democrats. Most them are to be sure conservative Democrats. But to me the issue isn't ideology, it's accountability, which is difficult to maintain in a single party government.
Thanks to Jindal's efforts, we now lag Louisiana when it comes to our ethics legislation.
If Harold Ford couldn't beat Corker in a year as bad as '06, then there in no way some random guy will beat him in '12 just because he's run once before.
That said, I agree with your overall point.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
But the point is Tuke will not be some "random guy". He will be familiar to Tennessee voters from the '08 race.
Take a couple of examples. Rehberg in Montana. He ran a close race vs. Baucus 10? years ago? Now he's a US Rep and a good possibility to take out Tester in 4 years. On the flip side, take North Dakota. No one runs against Dorgan or Conrad, other than some unfunded volunteer. Now, had a State Rep or other elected official taken one of them on prior, they could have built up the reputation to take on the other in a "good" year or an open seat. As it is, the roster of statewide Repubs in ND cower in fear of the liberal Dorgan and Conrad and give them a free pass every election (same with Pomeroy in the House).
What I fear is it is going to take a couple of Kennedy 5-4 decisions on gun rights and homosexual marriage to light a fire under not just the voters, but some of our potential candidates to take the leap.
I think you're largely on target. It would have been a big uphill battle for Huck to beat Pryor, for all the reasons you cite, plus money.
Huck could probably challenge Lincoln, but I don't think he has any interest at all in the Senate. I'm almost always wrong about that kind of thing though.
It isn't that the bench is thin, it's empty. You're now talking about a party that outside of its stronghold in the NW is talking up the fact that they've got some names on the ballot for constable races.
The NW has always been more conservative and probably always will be despite being a University area. That is in large part due to the business presence there. And the smaller proportion of minorities.
I think Huck bears some responsibility for the demise of the GOP in AR as well as the Hutchinson brothers.
When you talk NW Arkansas politics, you leave out Fayetteville. But NW Arkansas is growing, and has a large number of immigrants. This may transform the regions politics.
And state politics aren't really liberal/conservative--everyone is more or less conservative. It's regional. Asa's problem in the last gubernatorial election was that many outside of the NW were afraid that he would neglect the other regions of the state.
Remember, this is still a state where the most important job of any politician is bringing in pork, which we do so love here. Our University mascot isn't a Razorback for nothing.
I don't leave out Fayetteville, I say despite it. The UofA is my alma mater and I hold a BS PA from there. It is a liberal stronghold in the area to be sure. One of my favorite classes was Arkansas Politics with Prof. Diane Blair. Totally disagree with her politics, but she was a great instructor and taught me much. When I need a refresher, I go read JR Starr's Yellow Dogs and Dark Horses book. My guess is much of it still rings true today.
My father-in-law lives in the NW most corner of the state. We still have many friends in the Fayetteville/Rogers area and down in Fort Smith. All of them are concerned about the drain the immigrants are putting on the infrastructure up there.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Regardless of the lack of your donation.
So, who are they getting money from then? Moderates perhaps? And we wonder why the party appears to be less conservative than ever. If moderates are supporting the party with money, then certainly the party is going to become more moderate.
Erik
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Is the NRSC a branch of the RNC? Does the RNC have jurisdiction over it, or is it just an independent organization that just happens to be run by Republican Senators?
It's not just a wing of the RNC as far as I know.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Didn't mean that all the groups are taking in money. Sounds to me like the mistakes by the NRSC is causing their funding problems. And again, I am no political junkie...so is the RNC making the same types of mistakes - donating to moderates, rather than supporting conservative candidates?
Erik
Both the RNSC, and the RNCC have had fundraising problems of late. Since both the RNC, and the governor's group had banner years in 2007, I suspect that both the RNSC, and the RNCC are being punished for their 2006 shenanigans by conservatives.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002686784
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
It's a Target.
(I heard that joke today and giggled)
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Then the liberals are gonna win more seats. We can win SD and LA, maybe MA and NJ. We just need to make sure they don't take more than Virginia. Presto, the Senate is ours again.
Directly to the candidates, various PACs, CFG (if that's your bag), etc.
Just not the spectacularly incompetent NRSC.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
of the NRSC when the Chafee, Lafee mess occurred. Now it is Ensign, ACU rating of 87%. Will they be changing their tune?
Erik
So who are you going to win those seats with? Besides LA you don't have much.
In SD Johnson been polling like 70% against the ONLY Republican opponent and then you have MA with there giant 15% Republican base of support. Then lets travel to NJ the state the Republicans sink money into year after year after year and never do anything.
But lets say God is being really nice in 2008 and gives you LA and lets say... NJ. Ok but you lost Virginia which is now 50/50 and you suppose to keep New Hampshire which Republicans are currently losing by 10%, the same with New Mexico. Then you have Minnesota which again the incumbant Republican is losing to Al Franken! But it keeps getting better. Ted Stevens of Alaska is losing also in a state that hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since GRAVEL!!!
To finish. Republicans can't win in SD, NJ, or MA period. It is like a Democrat polling something out in Wyoming.
-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'
I'd rather ensure my monetary support goes to fiscally conservatives. Therefore, any other money goes to the RLC-PAC, or possibly direct to specific candidates.
www.fairtax.org
Sick of Government Expansion? libertarian-Minded Republican? Check This Out... Republican Liberty Caucus!!!
www.rlc.org http://www.republicanliberty.org/
Republican versus Republican fight (Braun) when we could be sending money to someone like Senate candidate Bob Schaeffer who is trying to hold Colorado.
Any organization, be it the CFG, NRSC or redstate.com, that advocates picking sides in a GOP fight, automatically drops a notch in my estimation.
We should be focusing FIRST on picking up seats rather than being PICKY about our seats.
I declare thine house to be made of glass, Erick.
[although I'm still your biggest fan and hope to see you in a governor's chair some day or in congress]
Read the post. He's not complaining about the picking of sides, or anything related to that. (which the NRSC did in 2006)
He's complaining that the NRSC hasn't even tried to field a candidate to run against Mark Pryor. I understand not pouring 5 million dollars into a race against Pryor, but I do find it hard that they couldn't find one enterprising pol anywhere who was unwilling to get their name recognized statewide in hopes for a future race. Even if you're a councilman or mayor, the obligatory "Senate candidate" bullet on the resume could position them well to take on a congressman or a statewide office if they run a good campaign.
In politics, you have your word and your friends; go back on either and you're dead. (Rule #11 of the public policy process)
The "if they run a good campaign" is the doozy. It is extremely difficult to raise money when everybody knows you're not going to win, and you can't run a good campaign without strong fundraising. If you can't raise seven figures for a Senate bid, there's a stigma attached that you're "not a good fundraiser" for future races. What's more, you may well not even get the name recognition because you can't afford to go on tv. Instead, the only thing voters find out about you is what the other guy's, in this case Pryor's, opposition research team decides to put out. There is very little upside.
In a perfect world, I'd get rid of all of them. Since we do not live in a perfect world.....
I would not be opposed to doling out 20-30 billion in earmarks to "buy off" a few senators and congressmen if it means that we keep the tax cuts permanent and eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes.
I'm also not opposed to doling out billions in earmarks if it means we start drilling for oil off the coast of Florida, California, and in Alaska. Or perhaps an earmark here or there to push through the Colombian and South Korean FTAs?
Is that good, honest government? No. But sometimes you have to "grease the wheels" to get good policy through.
Am I wrong?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Let's say that you need a new military base devoted to training soldiers how to X. X is a relatively new technology, developed by our boys in the Pentagon with some help from the Brits and a token effort from the Canadians, god bless them, and it's new and exciting enough that we need a base to train our soldiers how to X and how to X better than the Russians, once the Russians reverse engineer enough of the X thing through news footage and internet posts and satelite photos and, yes, good old fashioned espionage. They won't get X down pat, of course... but they'll get enough of the theory behind X to know who to bribe or coerce from their side of the world and then we'll have to make sure that our soldiers are better at X than the Russians.
And I'm not even *TALKING* about the Chinese.
Anyway, does Colorado get this base or does Idaho?
That's one kind of pork.
The other is the "let's throw some money at the Rodeo Museum, otherwise it'll go under."
The second kind of pork is the bad kind. The first kind of pork is the kind that is very, very good. Well, if the base comes to Colorado anyway. What has Idaho done for anybody lately?
I digress.
There are legitimate functions of government and, sometimes, the government does need to spend money on stuff like new military bases, or making rocket ships, or a handful of other things. The money *IS* going to get spent and so the fight between "do we spend it here or do we spend it there" becomes a serious one.
Sometimes, the only way to resolve it is to tell the (eventual) loser in that fight "okay, fine, we'll give you some stupid money for your stupid snail research museum."
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Let's say Senator A represents Colorado and Senator B represents Idaho. Senator A has their circles of friends, and Senator B has theirs. Both are equal in size, but neither equals a majority.
Let's furthermore speculate that Senator B's friends like the Colorado idea, but don't want to turn their back on their friend. Senator B has more of a powerful role in the Senate, and can hold some sway. In this case, you're going to have to pick off some of Senator B's friends in order to get the base to your state.
So, you tell Senator B-1 that you'll support their pet project, Senator B-2 that those healthcare amendments have your support, and so on.
And that, my son, is how peace parks in a transportation bill are born.
In politics, you have your word and your friends; go back on either and you're dead. (Rule #11 of the public policy process)
I just realized that Hillary could win PA, WV, IN, & KY. Obama will win NC.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
People still need to donate to the NRSC and I even donated to Chafee (while it pains me to see
him speak now more then ever but he was someone who voted for Republicans to keep control of Senate).
As for AR GOP they have shown zero signs of life; even the congressional candidates get free passes and keep in mind a Republican held one of those seats for long time.
I am sad to see the GOP recruitment for this cycle its amazing they let someone like Johnson get no stiff competition and there is no doubt the Dems will have the Gov of Wyoming, Kansas, and Arizona make the plunge soon for Senate run while the Republicans seem to be more erasable in Dem states while Dems are still able to win in Republican states it does say something needs to be done to change the persona the GOP party is anti woman, black, immigrant, gay, etc
And today, the Dems got a strong second tier candidate in KS - former Congressman Jim Slattery. Of course.
BTW, although Chafee is a joke, he was still the best choice in RI.
The NRSC is a big joke. They have learned nothing from 2006, when the DSCC made sure that they had strong second tier candidates in all the competitive races, which allowed them to take advantage of some mistakes, like "Macaca". (Tester was also a strong second tier candidate.)
The big news last week wasn't the loss in IL; that was always a possibility, based on the fact that Oberweis had such high negatives. (The NRCC should never have stopped "interfering" in primaries, and should have backed Lauzen to the hilt.) It was in SD, where a strong second tier candidate, former Lt. Gov. Kirby, bowed out of the Senate race. Why was this so big? Because even with the bad national environment, and the wave of sympathy for Johnson because of his illness, this was still the best year Steve Kirby will ever have to win elected office in SD. Kirby was an appointed Lt. Gov., whose running mate lost the governorship in 1994, and he ran unsuccessfully for Governor in 2002. In that race, he and another candidate beat the hell out of each other in the primary, driving up both of their negatives and thus allowed a third GOP candidate, Mike Rounds, to win as the "clean" candidate.
Obviously, Steve Kirby, cannot challenge Thune for the other seat, and Thune is not retiring any time soon. Based on his prior record, he would also be a huge underdog to current Lt. Gov. Dalrymple, and others, for the next Governor's race. Thus, his best chance for statewide office would be to run for Senate or House this year, against one of the two Dems, where he would at least be able to escape a primary, and he would have an outside chance of winning the general in a state where McCain will still easily carry the state.
In the end, Sen. Ensign was still unable to persuade Kirby to run. He should have been able to do so, by pointing out the above brutal facts, and promising some money (it is really cheap to advertise in SD, so the GOP can send some to the state to supplement Kirby's money). And this reflects poorly on Ensign, and the NRSC.
PS: I work in the DC area, and I have met some fundraisers for the RNC. Apparently, the problem the NRSC is having is that they fired all of their fundraisers, who had developed years of connections to donors, and brought in a whole new crew. Meanwhile, the RNC kept their old people, and thus kept up their donations.
Kirby would've entered the race down somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 points down with Johnson, one of the most popular Senators in the country, in the 60s. Barring Sen. Johnson having a relapse, we weren't going to win this seat anyway. If we wanted to contest it, we needed Rounds.
I do not agree Johnson won by less then 200 votes 6 years ago and now 6 years later he is getting a freebie? There are many statewide elected SD Republicans one of them could of taken the plunge.
While the NRSC has done horrible job (although the fact the Republicans have so many more Seats to defend) the NRCC should be the ones we should really be shaking our heads at.
I am sad to say I cannot think of one top tier candidate recruit the Republicans have gotten to take on a Democrat while the Dems have really done this (they are now going after Republicans in Missouri, Illinois, New York, Michigan)
PA is the one bright spot for the NRCC. Barletta and Hart are both top tier. Manion (vs. Murphy) and Kats (vs. Schwartz) are strong second tier candidates (the latter because of her millions). Plus, either Meuser or Hackett are strong second tier candidates, and considering the heavily Republican nature of the district, either could very well beat Carney.
Meanwhile, the Dems failed to field good candidates against either Dent or Gerlach or English.
Former Rep. Jeb Bradly is running for his old seat in NH-01 and talk show host Jennifer Horn is running in NH-02. Both are reasonably viable challengers.
He didn't get the scare from just anybody. Thune was an extremely popular Congressman and the only one who could've made that race competitive. What's more, Johnson now has the sympathy vote. Then there's the whole national mood thing, which is still bad for us, like it or not. All things considered, it's understandable why it's so tough to get a candidate.
That is because people currently feel sorry for him. That could change, especially when you are dealing with a health challenge that could suddenly take a turn for the worse. (Allen was going to win huge, wasn't he?) This doesn't affect the underlying logic of Kirby running for the seat (or the House seat, if you prefer).
If the GOP is serious about winning, it has to run at least strong second tier candidates for every potentially competitive seat in the House and Senate. Otherwise, they shouldn't bother us with fundraising appeals, and should just give up.
Exactly what if God forbid Johnson were not to be able to continue running then more then likely the Dems would be someone else in there while Republicans now would be able not too.
I agree that it would be nice to have a Mongiardo-type candidate here. As you may recall, Mongiardo challenged Bunning in 2004. He didn't have a chance until Bunning apparently lost his mind over the last month of the campaign. I don't mean that he made strategic errors. It actually apppeared as though he was going mad. Mongiardo ended up losing by just two points. So yes, I agree that it would be nice to have someone who could capitalize in the event that something similar occurs or if, God forbid, the Senator has a relapse. Even so, I can understand why candidates with a future in the state would not want to risk a 30-40 point loss banking on the slim possibility that Johnson's health will worsen between now and November.
That is exactly my point - Kirby has no future in the state if he doesn't run now. He can't win a contested GOP primary over a credible candidate for any other major statewide office (and neither of the guys running against Johnson now are credible).
PS: I just read that Cramer is retiring. Please tell me we will have a strong candidate here.
...in Arkansas that wants to run against this guy?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”