First congrats to Joe Miller in Alaska. He won time to bring the party together.
However I must respond to this rather illogical piece in the Washington Examiner .See Joe Miller's primary victory illustrates problem with GOP
I am frequently amazed that some of the most astute political commentators fail to recognize the human in politics. That is the real personal dynamics.
This piece is a prime example.
What’s interesting is the idea that national Republicans would be in any way at odds with Joe Miller. Miller is a political success story. He ran an insurgent campaign, winning the hearts and minds of Republican voters in Alaska, and climbed over a strong incumbent candidate.
First lets be clear. Before last week Joe Miller was hardly own any one's radar in the lower 48. In fact the Alaska race was not on their radar at all . I saw far too many conservative blogs and Twitter folks talking about Levi's run for mayor for goodness sake
The National Senatorial Committee's first obligation is to protect it's own members. These Republicans work together, raise money for each other in tough times, and are there to help mitigate the affects of certain tough votes a member has to make. That takes relationships and that takes loyalty among the membership. You can bet the now lame duck Senator raised money for other Republican Senators even those more "conservative" than her.
If the very conservative Vitter was in trouble by a "moderate" Republican I am pretty sure there would be no objection on her part to assist him. If you don't like it then don't donate money to the Republican Senatorial Committee. However I have no doubt is this was very conservative member and the Senatorial Committee offered no assistance we would hear massive complaints from the same peanut gallery complaining now.
The fact they raise money for their members and help them out should be no shock. It is forgotten it appears but the Senate held together on some pretty tough votes that helped hold back parts of the Obama agenda.
During an election cycle in which its clear that the American electorate wants change, you would think that the Republicans would embrace change within their own party. At a time when Americans are sick and tired of the status quo in Washington DC, Miller’s victory in Alaska represents voters demanding that change with their votes.
Miller won this election by about 1500 votes. That means about 49 percent of Alaska folks voted against him. He won but those GOP folks that voted against him are not chopped liver. Again I find some of what I have been hearing hard to swallow from a good number of people that were not even thinking of this race. Now it is true a lot of the tea party membership was high on this race but the tea parties are not all the conservative movement. It just seems a lot of people are jumping on the "National Republicans" because they got on the bandwagon late.
What business do national Republicans have being hostile toward the candidate Republican voters in Alaska voted to represent them in the election? That there is apparent hostility speaks to the fact that Republicans still aren’t getting it.
There is a tad sleight of hand here. We are talking the Senatorial Committee not all NATIONAL REPUBLICANS Our problem is so much Republicans or Democrats specifically, but rather the manner in which we are being governed.
Attacking Miller is attacking the change Americans want.
How was Miller being attacked. THEY SENT A LAWYER to help her in the recount and look at ballots. Again they are performing their obligation to a fellow Senate member. A Senate member by the way that might be called on making some important votes in a lame duck session.
I also suspect they were trying to offer her the hand of friendship because they did not want her to run as an Independent if she could.
I suppose the Republican Senators that often have to stand together while being portrayed in the media as a mix of the Klan and worst uncaring caricatures of Ayn Rand could commit fratricide on each other with the prevailing political winds. But where would that lead us? Severe mistrust in the body that is where.
Congrats to Joe Miller. However some of these attacks on certain "National Republicans' is silly. By the way in 6 years if Miller faces a similar challenge that his opponent faced the past week have no doubt the Senatorial Committee will be there to help them. I suspect the "conservative " voices will be in approval.
Some of the Conservative people that have earned the nomination and might become Senators are taking "popular" position TODAY. But when push comes to shove these positions might not be so popular in the future with these same voters. The American public can be fickle. If they hold on the principle they will depend on this same group that is being criticized today to possibly hold on to their own seat 6 years later
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The National Republican Senatorial Committee Did Nothing Wrong in The Alaska Senate Race
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"The National Republican Senatorial Committee Did Nothing Wrong in The Alaska Senate Race "
Then why did John Cornyn pull the NRSC lawyer out of Alaska and say he never should have been sent in the first place?
"The National Senatorial Committee's first obligation is to protect it's own members."
No, the primary obligation of the NRSC is to elect Republicans to the Senate. Period. It's not to choose sides in the primary, but to elect whoever is nominated during the primary process. Trying to protect incumbents is how the NRSC has gotten into trouble of late. (See, e.g., Specter, Chafee, and Crist - who, although not an incumbent Senator, was the NRSC's handpicked choice.)
The NRSC, if it's going to be successful, has got to stop being accountable to incumbents via the incumbent-protection game and start being accountable to GOP voters. Period.
These are elections, not coronations.
Jay
I am not sure how this would work. US Senators that often shift their own funds to other races and also raise money for the National Senatorial Committee are told now that they can't have access to this funds and resources? How would that work without causing major disharmony
Further we also know that often the "primary" is a time where even now the incumbents are having to fend off attacks from the other party. There is was for instance no Deomcrat Primary in Louisiana where Differences were discussed among themselves. It was all out attack on Vitter where Vitter using NRSC resources of various means had to fight back.
I have no problem with Senate Republicans raising money for each other and supporting each other. THe Natiuonal Republican Senatorial Committee is just one part of the whole process. I think the issue is way overblown.
In other words I am trying to envision a system where NRSC funds could devote funds not based on being a member alone and I can't think of one that would not destroy
the Fraternal nature. I cannot.
For all the mistakes the NRSC have done those funds are still critical
Also of course people don't donate to the Committee if they want too. I have a feeling most of the people complaining are not donors anyway.
You'd be right there. And the reasons more people don't contribute to the NRSC are spelled Specter, Chafee, and Crist.
These are people who BOLTED the GOP after taking NRSC funds to pay for their campaigns. Why should committed activists donate to such an organization when their money might wind up in the hands of an independent candidate taking votes away from the GOP nominee?
Look, the NRSC can do whatever it wants with its money. But they can't cry when voters tell them to go to hell for spending their money in ways that don't line up with the values of the majority of GOP voters. If the NRSC doesn't want to cause rifts between itself and Republican voters, it would do well to listen to the voters and be accountable to them, NOT incumbents.
Post a Comment