Not One Penny More
By streiff Posted in Republicans — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If there is one thing conservatives have in common with the lefty nutroots who frequent Daily Kos and similar sites it is that we've grown accustomed to being pandered to, hit up for contributions, and then deserted.
As with the Democrats, the default position within the heirarchy of the Republican party is one of supporting incumbents regardless of how useless they may be. This strategy got us Linc Chafee and Arlen Specter and it is being played out again to ensure that Wayne Gilchrest (MD-1) is re-elected despite his record clearly indicating that he'd be much more at home in the Democrat party.
That the National Republican Congressional Committee is supporting him is no huge surprise. That they would stick their noses into a primary is just bad form. That the chairman, Representative Tom Cole, would find the necessity of supporting Mr. Gilchrest so important that he'd sacrifice his integrity to do so is simply inexplicable.
There is more to this sad story below the fold.
This first came to my attention via fellow Marylander Monoblogue who posts an email from the Gilchrest campaign touting his endoresement by the NRCC and Representative Tom Cole. From Monoblogue:
National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Congressman Tom Cole endorsed the re-election bid of U.S. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest today, and urged Marylanders to return Gilchrest to Congress in the 2008 election.
“Wayne Gilchrest is an important part of our Congress and our Party, and I am pleased to offer my strong support for his re-election,” said Cole.
“While we may not agree on every issue, the strength of our Party lies in our diversity of opinions, and in the end, Wayne offers an honest and thoughtful perspective in the House.”
The NRCC is the Congressional arm of the Republican National Committee. U.S. Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma is the elected national Chairman.
Only on May 10, Representative Cole wrote this at Redstate:
While we work to rebuild our Republican majority in the House, the NRCC’s business is beating Democrats. As a general rule, as long as I am Chairman, the NRCC won’t pick winners and losers in Republican primaries. I’ve always believed that local leaders, activists (like you), and ultimately, the voters make the best decisions about who would make the best candidates and ultimately, Members of Congress. As Roll Call recently reported:
“Cole also said that he will refrain from doling out personal endorsements and campaign contributions in primaries while he is chairman. Cole’s decision partly is due to the wishes of House Republicans, who in a recent closed-door meeting were fairly unified — and vocal — in their desire that the NRCC avoid playing kingmaker in contested primaries. But Cole also attributed his policy to a belief that candidates who navigate a primary without help or anointing from Washington, D.C., insiders emerge battle-tested for the general election and in a better position to secure the support of grass-roots Republicans.” (Roll Call, 2/5/07)
Always a skeptic of the self-puffery candidates send out and wishing to reconcile the seeming inconsistency between an endorsement in the primary and a promise not to endorse candidates during the primary I contacted an acquaintance on the NRCC. Is this true I asked. Yes, I was told. You realize this will make a lot of your small donors a lot less than happy, I asked. He replied (reprinted here with his consent):
It is Cole’s job as NRCC Chairman to give this committee and our members the best opportunity to win back the majority. Part of that responsibility is protecting incumbents, the other part is reclaiming territory we lost in 2006 --- all to develop the roadmap to 218. Without a Republican majority, as Cole previously stated on RedState, the conservative agenda can not and will not move forward. We see the disastrous consequences of liberal leadership in the House: the Democrats have raised taxes, bent over backwards to reward the trail lawyers and Big Labor, and are spending with reckless abandon. The NRCC is first and foremost an incumbent retention committee. Cole is doing everything he can do hold seats as well as expand our numbers to get to 218 so that the conservative agenda can move forward.
Wayne Gilchrest is a terrible choice for MD-1 which could elect a mainstream conservative in State Senator Andy Harris.
I, like Monoblogue, have given my last penny to political groups. From this point forward I will give only to candidates.
cross posted at my Maryland Politics site which I am shamelessly pimping here.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Chris Shays: Bully — Comments (8) »
Not One Penny More 20 Comments (0 topical, 20 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
but Wayne Gilchrest is not a conservative in anyway shape or form.
Gilchrest is pro-choice, identifies himself as such, who voted last week to help the federal government pay for abortions. NARAL gives him a 90% rating.
He is one of two Republicans who have voted with Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha to require a retreat from Iraq.
His voting record, according to American Conservative Union score, is more liberal than that of Mary Landrieu.
MD-1 has a much better candidate in Andy Harris.
But all that aside, the NRCC has no business interfering in primaries.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"I, like Monoblogue, have given my last penny to political groups. From this point forward I will give only to candidates.
What about this happening across the base does NRCC not get? I get an early sense they smell blood because Democrats are so inept. Do they not realize that perception is what loses elections?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
I see the logic: stick with the person who has proven they can win the district. If Gilchrest has a very high approval rating -- and the NRCC had better commission this poll before acting -- I'll buy it.
When the mood is anti-incumbent and the incumbent is a Republican who doesn't share the party's values, the NRCC ought to step aside and let a possible movement be born.
I'm thinking, of course, of President Bush and Rick Santorum backing Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in '04. Tooomey was a politician with a movement behind him. There was that kind of excitement on the ground. Whether that is the case in MD-1 or not is not my point. The point is that the party must be allowed to heal itself.
I agree that the Republican Party needs to heal itself, but the party establishment also needs to stop inflicting wounds upon the Conservative Movement.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
That's the job of incumbents-by building a record that strengthens America and secures local support. Gilchrest's record on the war is awful, and he deserves to lose.
What Cole does not seem to understand is that every time he abuses the NRCC as a vehicle for protecting incumbents against local accoutability, he weakens it as an institution dedicated to electing Republicans.
Exists to elect Republicans, not conservatives.
It is largely funded by incumbent members of Congress.
Except for EXTREME cases (i.e. Bob Smith in NH), party committees will always back the incumbent because they're basically organizations whose members are the incumbents.
So basically two points.
1) It makes perfect sense to only give to candidates.
2) I don't think Rep. Cole is contradicting himself with this decision.
"My heart was here...I feel like I have unfinished business here." - Roy Hibbert
agree in all parts except the last.
Representative Cole was quoted in Roll Call as saying he would NOT endorse candidates in the primary. I'm assuming the quote is accurate because Mr. Cole quoted that article in his post here on Redstate.
That is a contradiction.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I'm taking it to assume he meant competitive open primaries (be it in challenger or open seat races). I don't think not endorsing the incumbent crossed his mind as a possibility, and I don't blame him since it's common practice by everyone to support the incumbent.
This gets tricky in situations like John Doolittle, though. I'd absolutely flip out if they endorsed him against any credible primary opponent. That'd be just plain stupid.
"My heart was here...I feel like I have unfinished business here." - Roy Hibbert
Cole also said that he will refrain from doling out personal endorsements and campaign contributions in primaries while he is chairman. Cole’s decision partly is due to the wishes of House Republicans, who in a recent closed-door meeting were fairly unified — and vocal — in their desire that the NRCC avoid playing kingmaker in contested primaries.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
but the question is, while that may be the way business has always been done, does it really elect the most Republicans?
The NRCC and the NRSC both shot themselves in the feet last election cycle by working against their base to put their preferred incumbents in place. Having honked off their base, they were surprised when they lost both chambers. Until these organizations learn that the "obvious" choice is obviously WRONG to their base, they won't be able to retake either chamber. We could spend a long, long time in the wilderness.
I agree that we ought not to contribute $$ to the NRCC, but only to candidates that encompass our views, regardless of whether they are challengers or incumbents.
However, to be effective we also have to let Tom Coleman know why we are not donating to the NRCC.
Write a letter, email or fax him to let him know.
JP
I agree that we ought not to contribute $$ to the NRCC, but only to candidates that encompass our views, regardless of whether they are challengers or incumbents.
Using this test, this site should only support conservatives. It's an interesting problem because Linc Chaffee, so long as he caucuses with the Republicans, can give you committee chairmanships. Zell Miller (for example) could not.
I actually agree with this thought. I'm no longer convinced the parties really stand for much anyway.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
I have received numerous call from the NRCC asking for loot! I have taken the liberty to blast the caller (i know that they are volunteers, but still...) about the HUGE RINO's like Gilchrest and others that I would never donate to. I have also made a specific point of telling the caller that I, NOT the NRCC would choose my candidates, and place my money where I think that it counts and represents my views.
All we can hope for is that our ex Governor runs to unseat him or Mukulski!
for exposing these RINOs. They have no place in a Republican Party devoted to conservative social and economic polices and a muscular and compassionate foreign policy
but too often what we get instead is a liberal Democrat who'll agree with Republicans on nothing. If we still had Lincoln Chaffee, Republicans would still be the majority in the Senate.
I expect the alternative to Specter, Snowe and Collins and others would not be a conservative Republican, but a moderate to far left Democrat. If there is no real opportunity to elect a more conservative Republican during the primaries, our time would be better spent finding candidates to defeat the Democrats from Red States till holding seats in Congress.
If we still had Lincoln Chaffee, Republicans would still be the majority in the Senate.
No.
Chafee only votes Republican once - at the beginning of Congress for Majority Leader. And given his statements and actions just before and after Whitehouse turned him out, chances are that he would not have even done that.
The rest of the times he happened to vote with the rest of his Republican "colleagues" were on procedural issues that also had a majority of Democrats in favor.
So what's the point of having Lincoln Chafee in Congress for Republicans? McConnell would officially be Majority Leader but he'll never be able to push legislation because Chafee would simply vote with Reid to gut it. So what's the point?
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
I sure hope the NRCC is going to stay out of the NC-3 primary, involving Walter B. Jones (who's pretty much a conservative on social issues only now-- he's sure looking liberal on defense and foreign policy, and more liberal than I'd like on economic matters, too) and Joe McLaughlin (who's a conservative all-round, and therefore would be a vast improvement so far as I, the fiscal conservative-only Republican, am concerned).
Side notes: the NRCC does not exist to elect conservatives. It exists to elect Republicans. That being said, I don't think that MD-1 is necessarily a seat where a touch more conservatism, at least on some economic issues, wouldn't play. But, then again, from what I understand, Gilchrest's primary challenger probably is too conservative, overall, for the district as a whole. And I really don't think that Gilchrest being pro-choice should be in any way a focal point of that debate. Just about everyone I know who works up in Maryland recognizes most of the state (i.e., everything but the Western bit) as being quite socially liberal. So, while some may not like it, my guess is that Gilchrest is probably in line with his district on that issue. But, getting back to the point, unless we're at serious risk of losing a Republican seat which we're pretty sure can only be held by the incumbent (and honestly, from what I'm hearing, I think it's exceptionally unlikely with or without NRCC intervention that Gilchrest will lose his primary), they probably should not be getting involved.
It appears that the NRCC is also playing favorites in Georgia's 8th Congressional District, favoring Rick Goddard over former Rep. Mac Collins. I'm a Collins guy, but I can understand why others might prefer Goddard. Even so, if the Chairman of the NRCC is going to say that he won't involve himself in primaries either through endorsements or personal contributions, they he shouldn't involve himself in primaries. Sadly, his personal PAC has contributed $2500 to Goddard's campaign. While I'd certainly agree that Cole should keep his pledge and stay out of the primary in MD-01, I'd say that this is even worse since Goddard is not an incumbent. This is very disappointing.
I have to concur with the rest of the posters so far: Although I regard Gilchrest as a RINO, I'm not sure his opponent could win the general election. I currently have the misfortune of residing in the even more leftist Montgomery County, but once resided in Gilchrest's district and regularly pulled the lever for him in the general election.
That being said, the NRCC should stay out of ALL primaries. The best way to elect more Republicans is to have the best available Republicans in the election. You can't do that when you fight your base. I count Pennsylvania's turning purple to Bush's ill-considered support of Specter for the Senate race. Had he simply stayed out of the race and said 'may the best Republican win,' I believe there would be an energetic conservative in that seat. Also, note that I'm not sure that Mr. Harris couldn't win the GE, I'm just doubtful. Of all the blue districts in MD, Gilchrest's seat is the best chance Republicans might have at turning Red.
As a native Marylander, resident of the 1st, and former intern in Rep. Gilchrest's office, I will preach caution before dumping and honorable and principled man like Rep. Gilchrest overboard.
While he has had his disagreements with the party over the war and environmental issues, the man is a principled defender of small government and the conservative cause. His brand favors conservation of his district from the ravages of sprawl from Baltimore and Washington as well as modesty in foreign policy, based on his experiences in Vietnam.
Rep. Gilchrest is a good man who is willing to articulate his disagreements with the party, but who is proud to call himself a Republican.