RCCC trying to lose House

[Deano963]

In an unprecedented effort, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee committed $200,000 to a Republican primary in Arizona's 8th Congressional District.

Now, they are not supporting an incumbent, as he's retiring.

Its not the case that their candidate is the only reasonable candidate, as two of the other candidates are a respected former state legislator and a former Republican National Committeeman.

In total, there are five candidates in the race, with four of them conservatives.

Naturally, the RCCC is supporting the only liberal in the race (trailing in the last available poll).  While Huffman calls himself a moderate, he is a liberal.

Right now GOP workers are so angry that they have vowed to never send any money to the RCCC again, and if Huffman manages to get the nomination, they will NOT vote for the SOB.

Indeed, all four of the other candidates have voted to support the winner of the primary, unless its Huffman.

If Huffman is nominated, this seat is in the bag for Democrats this year.

Oh, and btw, the Chair of the RCCC is NOT running for reelection (if he were a lot of Republicans here would be sending money to his Democrat opponent).

This is one of the most arrogant and stupid actions I have ever seen.

\

From Political Wire:

" Giffords, Graf Headed for Showdown in AZ-8

In Arizona's 8th congressional district, an Arizona Daily Star poll shows former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and Randy Graf (R) comfortably leading their respective primaries, with one week left until the election. The poll shows Giffords up 45.5% to 28.5% over her nearest challenger, and Graf -- a conservative member of the border-patrolling Minutemen -- leading NRCC-endorsed state Rep. Steve Huffman (R) 33% to 24.5%.

In the general election, the poll shows Giffords crushing Graf 45.8% to 24.5%. Huffman would fare a little better as the GOP candidate, the poll shows, but is still behind 42.2% to 38.9%. "

What's that about a Huffman nomination handing the seat to the Democrats???

It's great to see the wingnuts of the repub party forming a circular firing squad and working so hard to get the most arch-conservative candidate they can possibly find nominated in every district. It is making the Democrats' task of taking back the House much easier.

[Deano963]

First of all Eraserhead - you're welcome.

If Graf gets nominated, you can bet that Giffords will play Graf's comments about needing to teach ID and creationism in the schools and Graf will be dead in the water. 

Graf wins, it's Likely D.  If Huffman wins, it's Lean D.  He's not that strong of a candidate either.  Those of us who know the CD know that its simply too RINO, especially with a Republican against a strong candidate like Giffords.

Also folks, this is just one race.  I wouldn't read too much in it beyond AZ-08 implications.

Actually Sam, you would have a point, except that this (Republicans nominating extreme right-wing ideologues who make extremely weak general election candidates) is happening in A LOT of places outside of AZ-08.

In the MI-07 republican primary, moderate incumbent Joe Schwarz lost to a Club For Growth-backed far-right ideologue who attacked Schwarz for not being pro-life enough and for favoring stem cell research. I guess there is no room in the repub party for someone who uses the "safe, legal, and rare" position on abortion and who favors life-saving research.

In the race for the republican nomination for the Ohio governor's race, the republicans nomianted by far the weakest candidate of the three candidates, SoS Ken Blackwell, a man who constantly panders to the extreme religious right and calls homosexuality a choice and who is aganst abortion even in the case of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at stake. Either Jim Petro or Betty Montgomery, had the republicans nominated them , would not be losing to Ted Strickland by 20 points right now. Alas, Petro and Montgomery didn't bash gays enough or condemn the pro-choicers enough.

In the NY Gov's race, the republicans forced the more moderate candidate out of the race in favor of the arch-conservative candidate who has even LESS of a chance (if that's possible) against Spitzer in the general. Not a very smart move at all in state where as many as SEVEN GOP-held congressional sdeats could flip to the Dems in the face of the overwhelming Spitzer-Clinton victory that is about to all but take out the NY repub party.

In the RI-Sen republican primary, yet another far right-winger in Steve Laffey (who proudly declares himself to be way, way to the right of Ronald Raegan) is better than a 50-50 bet right now to oust liberal republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, one of the few republicans left in the Senate who is in the mainstream and that I respect. Yes, I know, Laffey is running as an "outsider" and linking Chaffee to Bush - LOL. What a crock of bull - if elected, Laffey would vote with Bush 99% of the time, far more often then Chaffee does. If Laffey wins, the Dems pick up one Senate seat before Election Day even happens.

These are just a few examples. I'm really too tired to look up every instance of this.

This is why I took exception to Carl's title of this thread in the first place.

Instead of "NRCC (not RCCC) trying to lose Hosue", the title should be "NRCC trying to KEEP House". I agree that National party committees on both sides should stay out of primaries, but it is obvious that the NRCC recognizes that Huffman is the only candidate who can keep this seat in GOP hands. National republcians are probably starting to realize that their primary voters are nominating unelectable candidates, so they decided to step in in this case. Agian, not defending their actions (I was incensed when Chuck Schumer did the same thing in the Dem Senate primary in Ohio), just saying that it is logical.

My point is, that despite all of the much-hyperventalated and over-the-top criticism of the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut by republicans for nominating Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, it is actually the republican party that has been taken over by it's extremist wing, not the Democrats, and there is evidence galore to prove it. Ct Dems simply nominated a candidate who was more in step with the state and the country as a whole for that matter on the issue of Iraq. Ned Lamont wants a withdrawl plan, Lieberman supports the "stay-the-course" slogan ("stay-the-course" is not a strategy, it's a slogan) of the republicans. That's where a clear majority of the country is. Republicans, on the other hand, seem more interested in nominating candidates who appeal only to their base and haver no chance of being elected.

[Deano963]

Dean, you are constraining too many things into one narrow guideline.

"Right-wing ideologues" can win in certain places in certain situations and can't in others.  Some of this has to do with the electoral scenario in play this year.  Same thing goes with "left-wing ideologues."

Let me deal with each issue point-by-point.

This is true, though MI-07 does not equal AZ-08.  MI-07 is more Republican, and more importantly, more socially conservative than AZ-08.  Such a "pro-life, anti-stem cell" viewpoint (if people really voted on this issue, and most don't) could work here for a Republican candidate and probably will, since the Democratic candidate is a zero. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps.  Ohio is more socially conservative, though, than you're giving it credit, and Ted Strickland is no flaming liberal on social issues.  Secondly, I would hold that almost any Republican candidate would be doing terribly in Ohio's governor's race regardless of views and this has to do with one thing, Bob Taft.  I also happen to think that positions on these social issues in governor's races are less important than national races.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The massacre that was going to occur in the state of NY this year was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who ran.  Still, I agree with you that in NY, the nomination of a moderate would be better for down-ballot races.

I should, while saying this, point out that Stuart Rothenberg commented recently that the Democrats appear to not be doing too well in their goal of ousting GOP NY Congressional members.  This may change, but he sees them doing much better right now in the Ohio Valley and the PA/CT suburbs, a comment I agree with.
[quote]

I read that piece by Rothenberg as well. It dosen't take into account Spitzer's and Clinton's national aspirations and how they would be doing themselves huge favors by helping the Democrats pick up those seats. Between the two of them, they will easily spend close to $40 million on their campaigns and GOTV operations targeted at Dems, indies and rebellious republicans. Current polls on individual House races in NY simply cannot account for the higher dem-friendly turnout this will generate accross the state on Election Day. A more moderate candidate for the GOP may have helped solidify republican support around their nominee. That is not the case right now, as the last poll I saw Spitzer attracted nearly 50% of the repub vote.

[Deano963]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In AZ-08, it was logical.  With Chafee, it is logical.  With MI-07, OH-Gov. or NY-Gov., I doubt it would make any difference.  The particular situation in a particular race is the concern here, not a general rule which one must abide to with inflexibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again Sam, not my opinion. Polls clearly show that most Americans think Iraq was a mistake and favor a withdrawl plan that starts THIS year. Democrats nominated a candidate who holds this position. That's not my opinion, but fact. Also, polls clearly show that most Americans are pro-choice and favor stem-cell research. Republicans threw out a candidate for holding these positions. Not my opion, but fact. Obviously more things than Iraq make up someone's political viewpoint, and I never said otherwise. However, in the case of the CT Senate primary, which I used as an example, it was THE issue that most of the voters voted on when they went to the polls.

Again, the larger issue I think you're not getting is the overall image the republicans are creating for themselves given the type of candidate they nominate. Clearly, in the case of MI-07, the strict litmus test of the social conservatives that Schwarz apparently failed is not going to help the party in the long run, even though they can "get away" with the wingnut they nominated in that District. Why do I say this? B/c Schwarz and his strongest supportes are now leaving the party that is why. As this happens more and more (and it already is in large numbers in states like Kansas), the republican party will only be driven further to the right and alienate moderates and independents even more.

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that these are my opinions. I did not think up this scenario on my own. I have read many, many articles, stories, blogs where moderate republicans are leaving the party b/c the party is "more focused on arguing over whether Darwin was right", as the former chair of the Kansass Republican Party put it, who is now running for LG as a democrat.

So yes, the implications of races like AZ-08 and all races for that matter are significant outside of the District itself. I'd say this is especially true if the repubs end up losing the House by one vote or a very slim margin. That's what you shouldn't forget.

[Deano963]

That's funny, b/c the polls I saw during the primary showed Petro as more competitive with Strickland than Blackwell. Same thing went for Montgomery.

[Deano963]

"The Republican Party broke its longstanding policy of not taking sides in primary races......"

LOL. Who is the moron who wrote that editorial? National republicans have been handpicking their fav candidates in primaries for forever. Both parties do it.

Look at the RI Senate race. How can anyone claim that they have a longstanding policy of not taking sides?