Will RNC Punish Arlen Specter?
February 26, 2009 by Cato
Filed under Conservatism, Maryland, National Politics, Republican Campaigns, Video
Yet more evidence that former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is in way over his head as RNC Chairman.
It’s foolish to publicly discuss “retribution” against Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), or anyone else. President George W. Bush was wrong using the RNC to back incumbents like Specter and former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) in primary challenges. Steele would be equally wrong in allowing the RNC to fund primary challengers against moderate / liberal Republicans like Specter. That is not what the national party is for.
As we have discussed in the past, if Steele really understood (much less believed in) the philosophy of Reagan conservatism he wouldn’t need to pander here, equivocate there. Unfortunately, taking a year off and absorbing all of Morton Blackwell’s Read to Lead list wouldn’t fix the problem. It’s like church. Memorizing the catechism isn’t enough. You’ve got to BELIEVE.
Given that there are plenty of attainable Democrat seats to be gone after, why do we need to worry about the RNC financing a primary challenge against Specter? A true conservative leader could make that case. Unfortunately, when you’re not “one of us” you feel the need to feed the base a little red meat.
Does anyone actually believe that Reagan, or even Haley Barbour, would entertain such a discussion?
You would think that the RNC would have learned the lesson of Lincoln Chaffee and Wayne Gilchrest. Simply put, even the most liberal Republican is better than the most conservative Democrat. We ran Wayne Gilchrest out of town, and handed the Dems a big ol’ gift, complete with a blue bow. Likewise with Chaffee, he was the only Republican that could win Rhode Island, and what happened when a conservative ran against him in a primary? Sheldon Whitehouse, that’s what. Rhode Island may never have another Republican senator again. If the Republicans are going to narrow the tent, we can bank on continuing to toil in the political wilderness
I don’t really agree with you Mr. D’Brickashaw. The party shouldn’t be involved in primary fights. The RNC was involved in Specter’s and Chaffee’s primary fights when they last ran. In the case of Chaffee, the RNC even went so far as to lie to the RI state party that the money was NOT for Chaffee; but that’s where it went. In the case of Gilchrest, the RNC wasn’t involved; although we should remember that both Steele AND President Bush endorsed Gilchrest.
I’m a firm believer in primary challenges against liberal Republicans. I simply don’t believe in using the national party to threaten incumbent members of Congress. Let the voters of their respective states do that through a vigorous primary challenge. If they want to risk losing the seat, that is their business.
You disagree with me on what point? That a liberal Republican is better than a conservative Democrat? If that is indeed where you come down, you are letting the perfect stand in the way of the good, and I always question the efficacy of that philosophy. Pragmatism in the case of party politics is generally a good policy.
The party should protect incumbents and it should encourage quality candidates that can win GENERAL elections, not simply primaries. We know that incumbents can win general elections, so the party should never encourage primary opponents to incumbents that are proven winners, since it serves no purpose. We can have politicans who vote with us 75% of the time, or we can help replace those politicans with ones who will vote against us 90% of the time. Even Michael Steele should be able to see his way around that equation, wouldn’t you agree?
Notice the nuance in my point above. The party should never encourage primary opponents. Does this mean that they should discourage strong primaries? Or support one candidate over the other? I would think not. Let whomever wants to run, run. As you say quite correctly, that is their business.
But let me close with this: bloody primaries have little benefit for the bloodied party. Instead, the opposition is the one who usually reaps the benefit. The Party apparatus, such as it even exists at the local and state levels, can serve no more important role than limiting the bloodiness of Republican primaries.
I agree with much of what you say. I don’t believe that state or national parties should ever enter into a primary. I do however believe that challenging a moderate to liberal GOP incumbent is not a bad thing. I just don’t want the parties getting involved.
One point that you are not clear on is whether or not the parties should fund incumbents in a primary campaign. If you do, I heartily disagree.
Your 75% analogy is fine. The problem is what about the guy who only votes with you 50% of the time, or 40%? I agree that it is often foolish to sacrifice a moderate incumbent when you know that a hard core conservative will lose in the general. I also think that there are times when an incumbent becomes so liberal and so arrogant that the risk is worth it.
Give me a real Democrat over one that simply runs on the GOP line any day. That said, I don’t demand that every GOP candidate adhere to my philosophy. Unfortunately, many do not support my view. For a certain percentage of voters (left and right) they are will never support a candidate because of his or her stance on one or two issues.
The problem lies with how do we bring disparate these disparate factions together. Having state parties and the RNC act as incumbent protection machines is not the answer.