Steele Trapped
This just in from the “If it is broke, get rid of the rest of them” file. RNC Chair Michael Steele is contemplating shutting off RNC funds from the three moderate Republican Senators that supported the stimulus package. Michael, I know you have got to walk a fine line between your moderate tendencies (see the 2006 MD Senate race) and your need to project a hard line for the true believers of the RNC leadership that put you into office a couple of weeks ago, but seriously… do you really expect to win (or maintain) the Senate seats you currently have in 2010 with this course of action?
Look at the states involved… 1) Maine will NEVER vote a hard-line conservative for any seat at any time while the earth revolves around the sun. So, at best, you tick off two senior women members of the United States Senate… 1/2 of the Republican women you have in the upper House of Congress. 2) PA has voted in Arlen Specter since you were in middle school. With PA being hit hard by the recession, good luck making a case of NOT helping them out financially.
Fielding conservatives to run primaries against moderate Republican incumbents was a disaster in 2008. In your home state of Maryland, Andy Harris beat Wayne Gilchrest in the primary only to lose to a Democrat in November. Turns out Gilchrest would have easily won re-election so that worked out really well for the Republican Party.
The way to take back the majority is to find a message that resonates with the American people, not fighting each over the crumbs that are left over. Win, Baby, Win!
11 Responses to “Steele Trapped”
What someone needs to tell specter, collins, and snowe is that there is a political party for those who want big government, big spending, and government intervention and it is called the Democratic Party. The Republicans suffered for eight years with the idiot Bush starting new entitlements and spending like a liberal Democratic.
If the RINO's want ten trillion dollar deficits, they should have the courage to change their party membership and register as Democrats and run as Democrats.
Until the Republicans get rid of those responsbile for the failures of the Bush Administration, there can be no recovery. Big spending northern RINOS abbeted in the failures of the Bush Administration and need to go.
Right on Tony- the RNC should not be controlling the voting patterns of Congress.
All politics is local as the late great Tip O' Neill used to say– and Conservatives in the GOP will be learning that lesson the hard way! We had 6 years of GOP policy and it got us where we are to day.
I for one hope the RNC continues its trend of cutting off funds for its members that vote different from the Limbaugh-Plan. The bolder they get with their fascism, the more moderates they will polarize into the Independant Party. Then they will be exactly in the position of where their rivals (the democrats) were for oh so many decades…subject to divide and conquer at every election.
Ha…they really are like the dragon eating its tail. Let 'em penalize away!
Meanwhile, it's all one big happy family on the Democrat side of the aisle.
I think it was foolish for Steele to announce this, but let's not pretend that parties don't enforce discipline this way. If the Blue Dogs were muzzled any more tightly right now, we'd have to call on the ASPCA.
If I were Steele I'd leave the Senate moderates alone for now and focus on finding strong GOP challengers in the districts of the moderate Democrats. Their constituents didn't send them to DC to be handmaidens to Nancy Pelosi. Making it clear that the RNC will do this will either force the Dem leadership's hand so that real compromise can start to occur (allowing the moderate Dems to have a voice, which in some cases will result in legislation that the GOP can support) or the Dems will lose some seats in 2010.
superdestroyer, “If the RINO's want ten trillion dollar deficits, they should have the courage to change their party membership and register as Democrats and run as Democrats.”
Hahahaha….. much of that $10 trillion was Bush's doing with his tax cuts. Clinton had budget surpluses and Bush came in, giving his wealthy supporters a huge tax cut. And let's not forget Bush's Iraq War which will cost a couple trillion (or more)….
It wasn't Bush who was spending like a liberal Democrat… it was all the Republicans, including those who voted for the hundreds of millions of dollars for the Alaska “Bridge to Nowhere” which was never built, but Alaska still took the money and ran… I'll also remind you that Alaskans also get thousands of dollars a year from the government, partially funded by the rest of us. If the Republicans were really for fiscal responsibility they would stop that madness, but of course we are talking about the free spending Republicans when it comes to supporting their own.
I mean seriously, why IS Alaska giving money to its citizens these days? Alaskans have one of the highest per capita incomes of the states…. So don't try to present Republicans as being victims of the Bush era- they are just as free spending as any sailor in a port after three months at sea.
I support Steele's strategy 100%.
stockboySF,
I take it you have never been to Alaska. Alaska does not have a state income tax but most of the state is owned by the federal government. Since it is a small state but has a large defense presence and have a large number of federal installation, it makes sense that Alaska would receive more tax dollar than it pays in. Also, the state receives money from the oil fields. The state gives some of that money to its residents to offset the high costs of living in Alaska.
The Bush Administration added about $5 trillion to the debt in eight years. the Obama Administration will add that much is its first four years. The increased interest payments will make it harder for the federal goverment to control taxes and GDP consumption in the future. The Obama Administration seems even less interested in the long term than the Bush Adminsiration was.
fI love who leftist talk about Clinton budget surpluses while failing to remember that the Republicans controlled congress during every year that Clinton ran a surplus. If the Clinton Administration had succeeded in nationalizing health care in 1993, I doubt if the government would have been running surpluses.
superdestroyer, “I love who leftist talk about Clinton budget surpluses while failing to remember that the Republicans controlled congress during every year that Clinton ran a surplus.”
Yes, I know that and that's why I would like the Republican Party to become responsible again and eventually have control of Congress. I don't trust any political party to have power in both the executive and legislative branches…. We saw what happened when the GOP had such power. But at the moment the GOP just simply sucks… and that hurts all of us in the ling run.
As far as Alaska…. yes, I am well aware that residents receive money to reimburse them for the high costs of living…. But why? The cost of living in San Francisco and New York is high so why aren't we compensated? I can understand it when Alaska first became a state and the US was encouraging people to move there, but times have changed….. And Alaskans do have a pretty good per capita income, too.
SD- Yes the GOP controlled Congress during those years- but if GW had been president instead of Clinton during the 90's, do you really thing the surplus would have been there? And It vanished in 2001 as quickly as you can say “tax cuts for the rich”, LOL
The Republicans showed their true colors when they dominated all three branches of government, proving that their much ballyhooed conservative dogma was just that. If they were trying to demonstrate that too much government resulted in wasteful spending, they succeeded magnificently!
CS- At least the Dems supported candidates who were not traditional liberals– can you see the RNC supporting liberal or moderate candidates??? That alone makes them look rigid and unwilling to compromise.
I'd rather have a party with a diversity of viewpoints than one that marches in lockstep. Republicans SHOULD have learned that lesson after the last two elections. Those who voted with Bush more than 90% of the time were defeated time and time again.
kritt,
The government was running negative on current accounts even before GW was sworn in. Clinton benefitted from the dot.com bubble and capital spending on IT due to Y2K. After y2k, most companies cut capital spending and the dot.com bubble popped. If Al Gore would have been elected president, he would have had a deficit in 2001. However, Al Gore would have been unable to start any new spending programs due to the Republican controlled Congress. Unlike the NCLB and compassionate conseratism of the incompetent Bush Administration.