At least, that is the impression I was left with from this blog post at the RLC. The blog post, put up by Aaron Biterman, is dead on with it's assessments, though.
A headline in this week’s Tampa Tribune is titled “GOP infighting shakes party”. The article talks about a familiar 2009 theme: “An increasingly fractious challenge to the Republican Party from its own conservative base could relegate the party to indefinite minority status,” says author William March.
Yes, a familiar theme from the MSM...the GOP must move to the center, the Dems must move left.
No state has more of a fight on its hands than Florida, where Republican Party Chair Jim Greer has, no doubt, acted illegally to prop up his favorite candidates and help his friends defeat his enemies. This was already clear when Greer had his cronies boot Republican Liberty Caucus members from the party in September. Now there are increasingly vocal calls for Greer to resign as party boss.
Considering that it's usually the moderate candidates who lose, and the principled candidates seemed to keep their jobs for the most part after 2006 and 2008, you'd think that the non-moderates would be given a few more opportunities. Jim Greer should lose his job...you don't kick out the guys who, with their fiscally conservative principles, actually capture the growing mood of the populous.
After knocking the NRSC for supporting moderate candidates in GOP primaries (instead of supporting the nominated candidate), the RLC goes after Karl Rove.
Whatsmore, the NRSC is now encouraging its readers to take advice from Karl Rove. In an e-mail the NRSC sent out yesterday, its Communications team forwarded an article from Karl Rove to all NRSC subscribers. Rove’s article was published in The Wall Street Journal, and the NRSC team said it’s a “WSJ Editorial You Should See”.
I saw it, and — shock! — I am not impressed.
Why is the NRSC encouraging its members to listen to Karl Rove? Rove’s name has come up in many political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Moreover, his strategy of “compassionate conservatism” along with his support of the Bush Doctrine are among the main reasons why Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008.
In the article, Rove says, “In Connecticut, Sen. Chris Dodd trails former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons 35% to 48% in the latest Quinnipiac poll.” Rove does not acknowledge that two other Republican candidates also poll ahead of Chris Dodd: Linda McMahon and RLC-endorsed candidate Peter Schiff. This “ignore at all costs” strategy has been something that Republican establishment candidates have been very skilled at, but has not yielded successful results.
Linda McMahon automatically gets my endorsement. Those who know me know why ;) In fact, I will add that endorsement soon (though I do think she is an excellent candidate on many issues). The blog closes out with this succinct statement.
The NRSC cannot be allowed to select Republican Senate candidates for GOP primary voters.
Registered Republicans in CA, CT, FL, IL, KY, and other states should select the best candidate to represent the state — without NRSC interference.
This is certainly a firebrand blog post with a lot of truth in it. However, the GOP needs to tread carefully. I don't know how well a conservative candidate like Chuck DeVore will do in California, where Carly Fiorina is already ahead of Barbara Boxer in early polling and the electorate tends to lean moderate-to-left in the populated areas.
I think Rubio will give Crist a run for his money in Florida. Also, I think Rand Paul should get a ton of support in his primary campaign given that he is the son of the RLC's favorite son, and he should have a great shot at taking Jim Bunning's soon-to-be-open seat.
Bottom line of advice to the NRSC (and the NRCC)...don't ignore the conservatives and the conservatarians.