GOP vs. Conservatives?

Human Events (Right Angle section) ^ | 09-04-2006 @ 06:24 PM | Matt Lewis

[George W. Bush]

Writing in Sunday's Washington Post, Marc Ambinder observed, “Both parties have well-financed internal agitators who yank tight the chains of ideological discipline -- think of MoveOn.Org on the left and the Club for Growth on the right ... The Republican base is fracturing around fiscal probity, immigration and cultural issues.”

He's right. And it seems the Republican Party committees are actually working around-the-clock to expedite the process.

It has been much noted that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has spent millions of dollars against conservative Steve Laffey in Rhode Island.

But now, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has also decided to intervene in a primary election. In Arizona, they are spending thousands of dollars to defeat conservative former State Representative Randy Graf.

According to his website, Graf has received the endorsements of Concerned Women PAC, the political action committee of Concerned Women for America, and Arizona Right to Life PAC.

If conservatives are upset by the NRSC's involvement in Rhode Island, they should be enraged by this. The NRSC can at least claim they are defending an incumbent (Sen. Lincoln Chafee). But the NRCC is meddling in an open primary.

Unless there is something damning about Graf that we don't know about, it’s hard to imagine that conservative donors will be happy with this move.

Which brings me to my real point …

Campaign finance reform, as well as technology, have slowly conspired to diminish the importance of political parties (and their committees). Based on recent events, this appears to be a good thing.

Of course, donors who are turned-off by having party money spent against conservatives in primaries, currently have the option of contributing to the Club for Growth, an organization that has (no doubt) benefited from this disturbing trend. In a sense, the Club functions like a committee for conservatives. Like campaign committees, the Club settles on a select number of races to concentrate its resources on.

One of the factors the Club takes into consideration (when deciding whether or not to support a campaign) is “winnability”; It is important to focus precious resources on candidates (and districts) that can be won. But the Club also (admits) to considering a candidate's political philosophy.

In short, donors know they can make a contribution to the Club, and the Club will take care of figuring out how best to spend their resources (to have the biggest impact on America).

But while the Club works hard to help fiscal conservatives, the conservative movement still lacks an effective organization to fund, train, and provide logistical support to social conservatives.

The Club spends real money on races they care about. But if most social conservative groups support you -- you get an endorsement (and maybe added to their prayer list). While endorsements are important (and prayers are always appreciated), they do not pay for yard signs, TV ads, or pizza for your volunteers.

Party committee's are still tremendously powerful -- partly because of the Republican "brand". But what if there were two or three conservative groups like the Club?

On the other hand, both party committees will soon be under new leadership. My guess is that the next Chairmen will restore the committee's to their former glory. So I'm hoping this is all a moot point ...

[George W. Bush]

Club For Growth

Consider who you want your money to support. Conservatives or some liberal selected by an unknown committee of the GOP.

[mr_hammer]

"Campaign finance reform, as well as technology, have slowly conspired to diminish the importance of political parties (and their committees). Based on recent events, this appears to be a good thing."

The author might have a point. The Dem's debacle with Liberman only furthers his argument.

[SolidSupplySide]

Supply side bump!

[ElkGroveDan]

“Both parties have well-financed internal agitators who yank tight the chains of ideological discipline

[100-Fold_Return]

And it seems the Republican Party committees are actually working around-the-clock to expedite the process.

Mr. President, many folks are saying, "Duh, guess those libertarians were right: There ain't no two parties...just one!??"

[Terpfen]

Mr. President, many folks are saying, "Duh, guess those libertarians were right: There ain't no two parties...just one!??"

Ironic, considering the libertarians are liberals on a budget. Wake me when they support the war on terror.

[word_warrior_bob]

I live in NJ and I have had it with NJ "republicans".

I will vote for the conservative or libertarian candidate until they start nominating real republicans for office, you hear that Tom Kean Jr?

Once they see that people voting consertive instead of for "republicans" is costing them elections maybe they'll start giving us republicans to vote for.

[Dead Corpse]

Wake me when they support the war on terror.

Some of us do. Non-initiation of force does not preclude retaliatory force. Of course, the anti-war at any cost conspiracy nuts currently in control of the LP have abandoned principle to try and snag a few votes from the anti-war left.

Bad mojo there.

[Soul Seeker]

Meanwhile, from the CFG

The political action arm of the influential and well-funded Club for Growth, with 9 wins and only 3 losses this election cycle, today endorsed three candidates for the U.S. Senate: Michael Bouchard in Michigan, Michael Steele in Maryland, and Mike McGavick in Washington. Bouchard and McGavick are challenging vulnerable incumbent Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), while Steele is running for an open seat in Maryland.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/

Don't donate to the RNC, their sponsered candidate against Graf and don't vote for Chaffee. Conservatives should instead support the conservatives, or those significantly more our allies, such as the challengers above if you need somewhere to put your money and your feet. As well, money and feet should be shifted to Santorum, Talent, Burns and I'm certain everyone here knows the names qworthy of our support. Irey, Robinson, make your voice, money and actvist participation count for something this cycle with people worthy of your support.

[Common Tator]

Libertarians .... dopes doing dope...

[MrEdd]

Stopped clock, Twice a day.

[MrEdd]

I am a conservative not a Republican. I will vote for Republicans IF they are conservative. If Bush's opponent had not been Hanoi John Kerry, I would not have voted in the last election.

Islam's war against the west will inevitably bring the US a nuclear strike. The persistent open borders are a hot potato that will utterly destroy the party in power when it happens. I prefer that the borders be closed - but barring that, let it be the liberals who are destroyed if we're not going to move to prevent it.

This is as obvious and foreseeable as the earlier attacks on September eleventh. Aside from the loss we all will have of family and friends WHEN not if this happens, I recognize that the party who emerges in power will be able to radically reshape government the United States. Many on the left foresee this as well, and are actively working to keep our defenses weak.

I therefore am willing to sacrifice important pieces to win the game. Winning the white house or congress are less important than closing the borders. A candidate who could win an office, at the cost of placing someone in office that the left could justifiably claim failed to aggressively defend America costs conservatism control of the board.

By the same token I will not move to save a socially liberal republican candidate merely to defeat the democrat. Sometimes control of the board is more important than saving every pawn.

If I get a liberal in office who votes liberal while claiming (unchallenged) to represent the party with a conservative platform, then my voice is even more unheard than if a liberal democrat is in office. It means that conservatives will vote for anyone who claims conservatism, even if they are to the left of Hillary Clinton. It also means that the Republican party did this eyes wide open, believing that I (and other conservatives) would vote for a yellow dog if it was a republican. Sorry RNC that only works with democrats.

Semper Fidelis

[BW2221]

"Wake me when they support the war on terror."

And wake me when the President and key members of the Senate support border security (an important part of the war on terror).

[Spiff]

But now, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has also decided to intervene in a primary election. In Arizona, they are spending thousands of dollars to defeat conservative former State Representative Randy Graf.

According to his website, Graf has received the endorsements of Concerned Women PAC, the political action committee of Concerned Women for America, and Arizona Right to Life PAC.

If conservatives are upset by the NRSC's involvement in Rhode Island, they should be enraged by this. The NRSC can at least claim they are defending an incumbent (Sen. Lincoln Chafee). But the NRCC is meddling in an open primary.

Unless there is something damning about Graf that we don't know about, it’s hard to imagine that conservative donors will be happy with this move.

As a resident of District 8 in Arizona, a Republican Precinct Committeeman, and the vice president of a Republican Club I absolutely resent the NRCC's inappropriate and unprecedented interference in this OPEN and competitive Primary Election.

Now, also unprecedented, is the latest bizarre twist to this. To counter the NRCC's inappropriate interference on behalf of Steve Huffman, the DCCC (yes, the Democrats) have made a massive media buy and are running attack ads against Huffman.

While I am totally opposed to liberal RINO Huffman's election, I am opposed to the DCCC's interference in this local Republican open Primary Election. Let the people of District 8 decide whom they want to be their representative in Washington D.C. National level interests more concerned with retaining or gaining majority power should NOT be permitted to put their massive amounts of cash (the NRCC distributed over $45 million in 2004) and their agenda ahead of our absolute RIGHT to decide our own representative.

[George W. Bush]

New today from Club For Growth:

---

Club for Growth PAC Endorses 3 Senate Candidates

Andrew Roth

CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC ENDORSES BOUCHARD (MI), STEELE (MD), AND MCGAVICK (WA) FOR SENATE

WASHINGTON, DC - The political action arm of the influential and well-funded Club for Growth, with 9 wins and only 3 losses this election cycle, today endorsed three candidates for the U.S. Senate: Michael Bouchard in Michigan, Michael Steele in Maryland, and Mike McGavick in Washington. Bouchard and McGavick are challenging vulnerable incumbent Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), while Steele is running for an open seat in Maryland.

"The Club for Growth PAC is making a big difference this election cycle: we're helping pro-growth candidates win and knocking anti-growth candidates out. We're excited about these candidates and their commitment to cut taxes, cut spending and growing the economy. Jobs and the economy are one of the top priorities to voters, and we will make it clear in each of these races what is at stake," said Pat Toomey, President of the Club for Growth.

MIKE BOUCHARD FOR SENATE - MICHIGAN

"The Club for Growth PAC is proud to support Mike Bouchard because of his strong pro-growth and pro-jobs agenda, which is what Michigan needs most. Sen. Stabenow, on the other hand, has voted repeatedly to kill tax relief, increase Washington spending, and threaten economic growth," said Toomey.

"Sen. Stabenow is good at one thing, however, which is raising piles of campaign cash. The Club for Growth PAC wants to make sure that Mike Bouchard gets a fair chance to talk about his record. With our support, we're confident that he will," said Toomey.

The Club for Growth PAC has already helped one pro-growth candidate win in Michigan this year when it endorsed Tim Walberg early in his race against Congressman Joe Schwarz and raised over $600,000 for his campaign. In addition, the Club for Growth PAC spent over $500,000 in independent expenditures including hard-hitting TV and radio ads that underscored Joe Schwarz's liberal record on economic issues.

"The Club for Growth PAC already helped Tim Walberg defeat one anti-growth incumbent from Michigan, and now we want to do the same for Mike Bouchard," said Toomey.

MICHAEL STEELE FOR SENATE - MARYLAND

"Michael Steele is a strong leader who knows that opportunity and economic growth are the keys to a bright future, not more government spending and higher taxes. Two of his leading opponents have a different view, as both have voted for an array of higher taxes and more spending in Congress. Michael Steele has a very good chance to be the first pro-growth Senator from Maryland in many years," said Toomey.

MIKE MCGAVICK FOR SENATE - WASHINGTON

"Mike McGavick has very strong free-market credentials and knows that limited government and low taxes lead to more jobs and more opportunity for workers. Senator Maria Cantwell talks a good game, but too often is voting the other way, siding with more taxes that could threaten the strong economic growth we've experienced in the past few years. The Club for Growth PAC wants to make sure that Mike McGavick gets a fair chance to talk about his record. With our support, we're confident that he will," said Toomey.

PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.

---

I think these Senate candidates are pretty exciting. Especially the move to defeat Stabenow. But Steele, a black conservative, is almost as exciting. And they seem to have added Jon Kyle, Senator-AZ, recently as well. Go, Club!

[Spiff]

JOINT STATEMENT ISSUED BY FRANK ANTENORI, RANDY GRAF, MIKE HELLON, AND MIKE JENKINS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 5, 2006

"Today, we, four of the five Republican candidates for Congress in Arizona's Eighth District take a bold step to jointly declare our unified outrage at the highly unusual actions taken by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) to openly support one candidate, Steve Huffman, in this Republican primary.

On March 30, 2006, RNC Chairman Ken Mehiman visited Tucson to attend a local party fundraiser. During his visit, Mehlman held a private meeting with the five declared candidates for Congress or their representatives. Present at that meeting were Frank Antenori, Randy Graf, Mike Hellon, and Mike Jenkins. Steve Huffman sent a representative, his former treasurer, Bill Arnold. At that private meeting, Mehlman made it clear that the national Republican Party would stay out of the primary race, promising to help whomever the voters of the Eighth Congressional District chose as their candidate for Congress in the upcoming General Election. Those sentiments were echoed by NRCC officials during private meetings in Washington, D.C. with some candidates in this race. Sadly, the promises that were made have been broken.

Additionally, the funds expended by the NRCC are monies reserved to defeat Democrats in the fall, and are not used to work against other Republican candidates in the primary. That right is usually - and should always be - reserved for the voters. What's more, these funds are raised from hardworking Republicans across the country, folks who support Republican principles. These donors would be shocked to know that their contributions are being used to defeat credible Republican candidates here in Arizona. We call on the NRCC to immediately stop using Republican fundraising dollars to defeat fellow Republicans. This primary campaign should remain above the belt and outside the Beltway.

We want the people of Congressional District Eight to know that this seat is not for sale. We trust the voters to choose their Republican nominee - not Washington special interests."

Contact Information:

Frank Antenori for Congress
Matt Neely, (520) 419-0609

Randy Graf for Congress
R.T. Gregg, (520) 877-2984

Mike Hellon for Congress
George Gobble, (520) 319-8217

Mike Jenkins for Congress
Lauren Blevins, (520) 403-7973

[BW2221]

With some of the candidates the GOP is supporting in primaries, you have to question who controls the party.

Lincoln Chafrfee has a 12% American Conservative Union rating. Can you see the Democrats spending money on a candidate that only votes with Americans for Democratic Action 12% of the time?

I'm starting to believe the only Republicans that count are the members of big business who are capable of donating $100k or more.

[EQAndyBuzz]

""Campaign finance reform, as well as technology, have slowly conspired to diminish the importance of political parties (and their committees). Based on recent events, this appears to be a good thing." "

There are no political parties anymore. The RATS wanted it this way. There are only ideological sides to take.

Conservatives = Conservatives
Republican/Democrats = Moderates = Liberals
Liberals = Marxists

That's the new paradigm. Until the Conservatives see this and start working within the Paradigm, the Far Left who are better at this game will work to triangulate ala Clinton and take the Whitehouse in 08.

[George W. Bush]

A little table of the Club's upcoming primary and general candidates and the results of races already done this year:

Steve Laffey (RI-Sen)	Rick O'Donnell (CO-07) Learn more about Rick	Chris Chocola (IN-02) Learn more about Chris	Mike Bouchard (MI-Sen) Learn more about Mike	Michael Steele (MD-Sen) Learn more about Michael	Mike McGavick (WA-Sen) Learn more about Mike	Jon Kyl (AZ-Sen) Learn more about Jon	Bill Sali (ID-01) Learn more about Bill	Adrian Smith (NE-03) Learn more about Adrian
Sharron Angle (NV-02) LOST	Tim Walberg (MI-07) WON	Doug Lamborn (CO-05) WON	Kevin Calvey (OK-05) LOST	Phil Krinkie (MN-06) WITHDREW	Jim Jordan (OH-04) WON	Henry Cuellar (TX-28) WON	John Campbell (CA-48) WON

For conseratives, it's a darned good record. For McStainiacs, it's enough to cause gnashing of teeth.

[George W. Bush]

At that private meeting, Mehlman made it clear that the national Republican Party would stay out of the primary race, promising to help whomever the voters of the Eighth Congressional District chose as their candidate for Congress in the upcoming General Election. Those sentiments were echoed by NRCC officials during private meetings in Washington, D.C. with some candidates in this race. Sadly, the promises that were made have been broken.

Translation: they thought the GOP's handpicked liberal candidate could win. When they discovered he couldn't, they had to pile the money on. Screw the rules and tradition, the ruling classes have a liberal to get elected.

[Spiff]

Translation: they thought the GOP's handpicked liberal candidate could win. When they discovered he couldn't, they had to pile the money on. Screw the rules and tradition, the ruling classes have a liberal to get elected.

Translation: They lied! And they did not have the approval of the congressional members of the NRCC. There is a process the NRCC uses to decide whom to support in which races and from what I've heard that process was ignored to quickly get money out to buy liberal Huffman additional TV ads. Huffman is already the biggest fundraiser (although for July and August timeframe Graf out raised him - which is phenomenal) and has already bought tons of media to fill the airwaves with his lies and distortions in his attack ads against conservative frontrunner Randy Graf.

AZ GOP Chairman Matt Salmon promised a Tucson audience last year that if the lies and distortions which marked the 2004 race (all of it coming from RINO Jim Kolbe by the way) were repeated the candidate would have to deal with him. So far, Matt Salmon has been hiding under his desk on this one, has failed to take any action, and has broken that promise.

[George W. Bush]

Let the people of District 8 decide whom they want to be their representative in Washington D.C.

Normally, I agree with you. And I saw some people in my own state who resented the Club coming in with big money to fund my own new congressman (to be elected formally in November). Given that my fellow-citizens were ready to hire themselves another pork-barreller to our congressional seat, I'm not weeping too much over them. They are liberals who call themselves Republicans and love to suckle the government's teats. I'm not sure why welfare farmers ramming ethanol into your gas tank are supposed to be so much more attractive than welfare mothers.

The problem is that races even in small states have effectively become nationalized. With the Dims running liberals with a lot of money and the GOP doing the same, how exactly does your average conservative candidate manage to get out the news that he got the National Taxpayers Union endorsement and the endorsement of right-to-life or RKBA groups?

Without the Club or something like it, he won't. He won't have the money to do it. And, without the Club, you'll just get a liberal of the Democratic or Republican flavor. Take your pick.

McStain/Feingold/Bush really screwed us with that CFR deal. This situation is the direct result of their unconstitutional meddling.

[George W. Bush]

(although for July and August timeframe Graf out raised him - which is phenomenal)

The Club is a force to be reckoned with. Big money that used to go to the GOP now goes to the Club. It makes a difference.

BTW, how do you feel about the Club supporting Kyle? I was a little surprised. I thought he'd be pretty strong in fundraising and endorsements already. Still, Kyle has done pretty well on conservative issues (100% ACU ratings for 2004, 2005 and a 97% career total). If the Club can't give him an endorsement, it's hard to think what it's good for.

[BW2221]

Unfortunately, too many times (even on FR) scare tactics are used.

In 1964, the line would have been "support Gov. Rockefeller because Goldwater can't win and we don't want a Rat in the White House."

If they followed that advice, where would the conservative movement be today?

It's time to retake control of the party from the RINOs (and I think we all know they control it). Sometimes, that means not voting for RINOs and letting a Rat win.

[Terpfen]

Sure will. It's far more likely than the Libertarian Party abandoning its isolationism.

[Spiff]

The Club is a force to be reckoned with. Big money that used to go to the GOP now goes to the Club. It makes a difference. BTW, how do you feel about the Club supporting Kyle? I was a little surprised. I thought he'd be pretty strong in fundraising and endorsements already. Still, Kyle has done pretty well on conservative issues (100% ACU ratings for 2004, 2005 and a 97% career total). If the Club can't give him an endorsement, it's hard to think what it's good for.

The Club for Growth is not an official or semi-offical arm of the Republican Party as the NRCC and NRSC are. My complaints are specifically concerned with national-level party interference in a local, open race. As far as I know, the Club for Growth has not had any effect in the CD8 Primary. Sorry for the confusion.

[George W. Bush]

CD8 primary? I was talking about Jon Kyl. (Misspelled his name before).

[calcowgirl]

“Both parties have well-financed internal agitators who yank tight the chains of ideological discipline -- think of MoveOn.Org on the left and the Club for Growth on the right ...

The Club for Growth is an "agitator"?

[Peisistratus]

"There are no political parties anymore."

Just political machines - with one working for the other.

I'll leave it up to the interested graduate student to determine which machine works for the other one. ;)

[Peisistratus]

"Unfortunately, too many times (even on FR) scare tactics are used."

When you have to motivate the troops through fear, you're doing something wrong. That's obvious to us, why not to them?

[Peisistratus]

"The author might have a point. "

So, do you think the "Incumbent Protection Act" or "Shut-up, Little People Act" (take your pick ;) ) might well have backfired?

[axes_of_weezles]

Here is the chaiman of the NRCC.
His Fax Number 716-631-7610

Biography of Chairman Tom Reynolds

U.S. Representative Thomas M. Reynolds marks the start of the 109th Congress as a member of the House Republican leadership team, following his unanimous re-election as Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). As Chairman of the NRCC, Reynolds is one of eight elected House GOP leaders. He oversees the campaign organization for House Republicans and is charged with strengthening the majority for the GOP.

During the 2004 election cycle, Reynolds oversaw continued historic gains for House Republican as: Americans elected the most Republicans to the House since 1946 – 232 Members strong; for the first time since 1928, House Republicans increased seats in a Presidential Election year; and for the first time ever, House Republicans increased our majority in two consecutive cycles.

With an emphasis on building races from the ground up, concentrating on local issues, and promoting the hard work of our candidates, Reynolds was responsible for the winning strategy and continued GOP success among voters.

Reynolds' ascension to the top ranks of the House leadership was the subject of profiles in both the New York Times and Washington Post. The Times, which named Reynolds as one of a half-dozen representatives expected to play a prominent role in the 109th Congress, reported that he has "filled a large void in a weakened New York delegation" because of his reputation for loyalty and hard work; while the Post noted that "Reynolds has quietly become one of the most influential Republicans in the House." His hometown newspaper, the Buffalo News, recently wrote that with "a love of legislating and an old-fashioned backslapping style, Reynolds has built a House career that at this point looks charmed- and limitless." The paper has also noted that the Western New York Congressman "wields influence on virtually every major state issue."

First elected to Congress in January 1999, Reynolds represents New York’s 26th district, which includes seven Western New York counties, and encompasses parts of Erie, Monroe, Orleans and Niagara Counties, and all of Genesee, Livingston, and Wyoming Counties.

Committed to a Republican agenda grounded in strong values and the conservative principles of lower taxes, smaller government and a more secure nation, Reynolds has helped elect Members committed to these same priorities.

Born on September 3, 1950, Reynolds was educated at Springville-Griffith Institute. By trade, he is a licensed real estate and insurance broker, and by passion a public servant who has been involved in a wide-ranging array of community, civic and regional activities. He also served as a sergeant in the New York Air National Guard from 1970 - 1976.

Tom previously served as Erie County Republican Chairman from 1990-1996 and as a member of the New York State Assembly where he rose to become Assembly Republican Leader, the first time a Western New York Republican was chosen to lead an Assembly party conference in more than 60 years.

Prior to his service in the State Assembly, Tom was a member of the Erie County Legislature from 1982 - 1988, and was selected by his colleagues as Republican Leader in that house as well. He also served on the Concord Town Board from 1974-82, where he rose to the position of Deputy Supervisor.

In addition to his leadership responsibilities, Reynolds is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Administration Committee, and also serves as a Deputy Majority Whip.

Tom and his wife Donna reside in Clarence and are the parents of four children.

[axes_of_weezles]

NRCC Staff Roster
320 First Street SE Washington, DC 20003

Executive, 202-479-7020
Sally Vastola, Executive Director
Don McGahn, General Counsel

Administration, 202-479-7000
Chris Ward, Controller

Finance, 202-479-7030
Tara Snow, Finance Director
Campaign, 202-479-7050
Mike McElwain, Political Director
Jonathan Poe, National Field Director
Larry Telford, Director of Incumbent Retention

Communications, 202-479-7070
Carl Forti, Director of Communications