In 2008 the National Republican Senatorial Committee spent millions of dollars in Republican primaries to keep incumbents in office and keep dynamic challengers with new ideas and real drive for reform out of office. They supported candidates like Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter who took their money and then left the Republican Party. They supported insider hacks like Trey Grayson against grassroots candidates like Rand Paul. In many cases their efforts failed, but in several states they likely cost Republicans seats in the Senate. If the money they spent in primaries had been saved for the general election Republicans might well control the Senate today. The NRSC's record for 2010 was disastrous for the party and they squandered the money of their contributors.
A lot of rank and file Republicans saw what the NRSC did in 2010 and decided they'd had enough. Donations to the NRSC are down and as a result their Democrat counterparts have been outfundraising them this year. Republican voters who are serious about reclaiming government for the people are increasingly deciding to give their money to groups they trust and candidates they believe in rather than to establishment groups like the NRSC who have made preserving a status quo of perpetual incumbency their priority. The people want change and the NRSC stands for nothing but more of the same.
Now it appears that the NRSC has learned nothing from their mistakes in 2010 and they are already beginning to use their money and influence to pick winners and losers in the 2012 Republican primaries. They are taking money raised from Republican donors who want a party which has the best candidates and remains true to its principles and giving it to insiders who have already failed the party and failed the people over and over again. Some of those they are supporting are among those Senators who are at the top of the list of those who most Republicans would like to see replaced by new leaders with more conservative principles.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
"perpetual incumbency"? If the alternative is the Tea Party crowd of ideologues and "thou shalt not listen to professionals" anti-intellectuals, I'll sign the incumbents up for the first dose of whatever Methuselah serum there is and give them the same appointed-for-life deal that the Supreme Court justices have!
2 - Dave Nalle
Yes, but you are deeply prejudiced against popular government and towards elites.
Dave
3 - Dan(Miller)
Not to worry. The country's in the very best of hands
Dan(Miller)
4 - Glenn Contrarian
"Deeply prejudiced against popular government"?
Considering all the times I've pointed out your strawmen about voter registration fraud, and all the times I've pointed out how how Republicans go to great lengths to wrongfully disenfranchise voters (particularly in left-leaning districts), not to mention Paul Weyrich's quote that "we" (meaning Republicans and conservatives) do better when less people vote, that "we" don't want everyone to vote (which was stated in front of Reagan and thousands of Baptist preachers)...
...who truly is against popular government?
No, Dave - you and your tea party cohorts are the ones against popular government. Witness your tea-party Republicans' obstinacy in spite of the fact that nearly every poll taken showed that even a majority of Republican voters wanted increased taxes on the wealthy as part of the deal.
Here, Dave, learn what the majority of America wants. Not that you and yours ever cared what the majority wanted....
And I see now that to you, if someone has a PhD. but says something that is against your personal political philosophy, that person must be an elitist and therefore is wrong. Only those PhD's who say what is in agreement with your dogma are the ones who can be trusted. Is that it, Dave?
5 - Dr Dreadful
Dave, they're conservatives. The default position of a conservative is to preserve the status quo. Why are you then surprised that the NRSC is supporting incumbents?
6 - Baronius
Dread, I'm not sure if you're kidding around. For one thing, political conservatism is different from (but related to) ideological conservatism. But either way, if an officeholder failed to support conservative policies, the conservative would be more loyal to maintaining the policies than to maintaining the officeholder.
I heard Limbaugh make an interesting point last week. He noted that despite all the changes in 2010, there were no changes in either party's leadership.
7 - Dr Dreadful
Exactly, Bar. Related to. Conservatives don't like change, and won't effect it if they can help it.
Limbaugh's observation doesn't surprise me. It would be odd of the Republicans to change their congressional leadership after an election they clearly won. As far as the Democrats are concerned, I think they have quite realistic hopes of both a second Obama term and regaining the House next year, so they may have a view to resuming business as usual.
8 - roger nowosielski
I'm certain Baronius is thrilled about having reached the agreement he was after.
9 - RJ
Orrin Hatch delenda est.
10 - RJ
"As far as the Democrats are concerned, I think they have quite realistic hopes of both a second Obama term and regaining the House next year"
Haha. Heheheheheheh. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAHHAHAHAH!!!
Dread: It's possible that Obama will get reelected (get back to me 11 months from now and I'll know which way it's going to go with about 90% certainty). But you seriously believe the Dems can recapture the House in 2012?
Want to make a wager on that proposition?
11 - zingzing
remember, doc, that rj predicted mccain would win in 2008, the day before the elections. he's no strange to wishful thinking.
12 - RJ
Care to make a wager, zingzing?
13 - Baronius
I've forecasted elections wrong up to 3 weeks after they've happened.
14 - Dr Dreadful
But you seriously believe the Dems can recapture the House in 2012?
I didn't say that. Read my comment again.
15 - Dr Dreadful
I've forecasted elections wrong up to 3 weeks after they've happened.
The Franken debacle, Baronius? :-)
16 - zingzing
rj, in 2010, you also predicted that the republicans would control the senate. i'm not saying that the dems will control the house in 2012. if the gop continues to flaunt its stupidity, it's a possibility. what i am saying is that you have a terrible recent history with political predictions. i think that losing streak has more to do with the fact that your "predictions" are more what you wish would happen rather than what you really think will happen. mccain in 2008? come on.
17 - handyguy
Olympia Snowe would make a fine Democratic or independent senator. I hope she wakes up to that fact in time.
Bob Bennett was not unpopular with "the people of Utah." He was unpopular with the tiny radical fraction of the people of Utah who attended the Republican nominating convention.
He was/is certainly a fiscal conservative, supporting the Fair Tax. His sin? Collaborating with Democrat Ron Wyden on a major healthcare proposal.
So the nomination of Mike Lee was an act of vengeance; how dare anyone be bipartisan?
Orrin Hatch is a sleaze-o-rama who can just rot. But if the Tea Party replaces him with another radical extremist like Mike Lee, the country will not become better as a result.
18 - handyguy
Like the Democrats' victories in 2006 and 2008, the GOP's 2010 win included many districts that basically belong to the other party. These districts often swing back after a 'wave' election.
One example: disgusting loudmouth/deadbeat dad Joe Walsh, who holds a suburban Chicago seat. Despite the fact that his district went 56% for Obama in 2008, and that Walsh won by less than 400 votes [when the Green Party candidate got over 6,000], he has been all over cable news with his outlandish Tea Party rhetoric. Shouldn't congressmen from swing district moderate their tone a bit? I can't imagine him being reelected.
At any rate, the GOP majority will likely decrease because of 50 or more districts like Walsh's. Whether they will lose their majority is a foolish thing to predict this far out.
19 - handyguy
The debt ceiling bill just passed the House. Half of the Dems voted against it.
Gabrielle Giffords made a dramatic return to the House for this vote. No immediate word on how she voted.
20 - RJ
Dread wrote:
"As far as the Democrats are concerned, I think they have quite realistic hopes of both a second Obama term and regaining the House next year"
I wrote:
"But you seriously believe the Dems can recapture the House in 2012?"
Dread wrote:
"I didn't say that. Read my comment again."
I give up. What am I missing?
21 - Christopher Rose
RJ, what you are missing is that Doc D wrote that they - the Dems - have quite realistic hopes...of regaining the House, not that he thought they would.
22 - handyguy
It would take 25 net seats switching to Democratic. There are more than 25 swing districts [or even Dem districts] currently held by Republicans.
23 - RJ
16:
So, you think my predictions suck, but you won't take me up on my current prediction. You won't put your money where your mouth is.
Is that about right?
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
24 - handyguy
None of us knows what it's like. Why don't you enlighten us?
25 - RJ
21:
Well if Dread doesn't agree with the "hopes" of the Democrats, why does he believe they are "quite realistic?"
Spin it all you want. He's backtracking.