Thursday, September 14, 2006

NRCC wastes money in losing effort

The NRCC jumped into the open primary and received a professional butt kicking in response. This was a monumentum waste of money that could have been spent elsewhere where it is needed.

From the AP

Arizona GOP primary won by conservative
9/13/2006, 5:53 a.m. ET
The Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — Former state lawmaker Randy Graf won the GOP primary for an open U.S. House seat despite lobbying from the National Republican Congressional Committee against his candidacy.

His closet rival, state Rep. Steve Huffman, received a late-campaign boost from the committee, which in a rare move broke its neutrality in a primary race by spending more than $122,000 on TV ads on his behalf. Party officials had expressed concerns Graf may be too conservative to win the seat in November.

But that move prompted a local Republican backlash, drawing a joint letter and a joint news conference in Washington by Huffman's four GOP opponents expressing their "unified outrage" at the national committee.


Pogo said...

I am amazed. If the Republican leadership spent as much time and money fighting Democrats as they do trying to defeat conservative Republicans, our party would be doing a lot better in the polls. During a time when the Republican party needs to unite we instead see a civil war erupting.

Perhaps we need to see a Republican bloodbath in November to remind the Republican leadership that conservatives are NOT the opposition!

Paleoconservative said...

Tancredo is the kingmaker. The guy he backed won, now the RNC and NRCC need to get behind Graf.

Pogo said...

A snippet from the Patriot Post newsletter:
"The elephant in the room
After 50 years of expediential matrimony, is the death knell sounding for the foremost political union of our time? In his new book, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party, New York Post columnist Ryan Sager contends that the ”fusion“ of moral traditionalists and libertarians, long the bulwark of the Republican Party, is on the brink of ruin.

Following a courtship based on utilitarian aims—libertarianism’s smaller-government guards against the moral corruption feared by traditionalists—the marriage of convenience affected the Republican sweep of government. Basking in their newfound power, says Sager, Republicans exchanged the principle of small government for a promise of benevolent government, endangering their unifying conviction and threatening to produce a party foreign to both conservatism and liberty.

Sager’s thesis is compelling, but we would offer a slightly different take. (Many evangelicals are, after all, libertarians.) The primary fissure in the Republican Party is not between libertarians and evangelicals, but between libertarians and conservatives. The former compares apples and oranges—a philosophy of government versus a religious worldview—while the latter frames the issue more precisely. Whereas libertarians seek to minimize government to the greatest extent possible in every situation, conservatives are constitutionalists: They want government to be strong where to Constitution so dictates, and nonexistent where the Constitution is silent."

So is this what it means when L. Brooks Patterson and Washington Republicans finance attacks on conservative candidates in primaries, because they say the Republican Party needs to move to the middle? That the Republican party needs to forget Reaganism and embrace big government?

Curley Sue said...

It may be what they mean, but it is apparently not working since candidates like Wallberg and Graf are winning across the country. Reagan Republicans are alive and well and I fear for those candidates who suggest our party should move to the center, they don't get my vote!