New Conservative SuperPac Formed To Blunt Tea Party Influence in Primaries

“Conservative Victory Project” will support “the most conservative candidates who can win”

With designs on winning control of the U.S. Senate in 2014, a new SuperPac financed by the biggest donors in the Republican Party has been formed to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from they types of primary challenges that resulted in the candidacies Todd Akin, Richard Murdock and Christine O’Donnell, according to an article in The New York Times.

Akin of Missouri, Murdock of Indiana and O’Donnell of Delaware each defeated establishment Republican candidates in Senate Republican primaries and went on to lose general elections that Republicans were expected to win after making public statements considered too far-right and out of the mainstream.  Akin and Murdock lost in 2012. O’Donnell lost in 2010.

“There is a broad concern about having blown a significant number of races because the wrong candidates were selected,” said Steven J. Law, the president of American Crossroads, the “super PAC” creating the new project. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win.”D

2014 Senate races in Iowa and Georgia will be the initial focus of the Conservative Victory Project.  Senators Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa and Saxby Chambliss (R) of Georgia have announced their retirements, creating wide open races for those seats.

Preventing the Senate nomination of Iowa Congressman Steve King is an early objective of the project.  Last week Harper Polling published a survey indicating that King in favored over the more moderate Republican Congressman Tom Latham in both a multi-candidate and head to head Republican primary for Harkin’s seat.  The same survey indicated that Latham would defeat the Democratic front runner, Congressman Bruce Braley, in the general election.

“We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Mr. Law said. “This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.”

Mr. King has compiled a record of incendiary statements during his time in Congress, including comparing illegal immigrants to dogs and likening Capitol Hill maintenance workers to “Stasi troops” after they were ordered to install environmentally friendly light bulbs. But he rejected the suggestion that his voting record or previous remarks would keep him from winning if he decided to run for the Senate.

King earned the support of Governor Chris Christie in his 2010 and 2012 reelection races by coming to the former U.S. Attorney’s defense during congressional hearings in 2009 that were designed by Democrats to derail Christie’s gubernatorial campaign against Jon Corzine.   However, King voted against the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill last month.  Christie declined to say if he would support King in the future at a Sandy related press conference.

Posted: February 3rd, 2013 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Republican Party | Tags: Chris Christie, Conservative Victory Project, Harper Polling, New York Times, Saxby Chambliss, Steve King, Tea Party, Tom Harkin | 12 Comments »

• Tweet

The death of Republicanism, Part 2: the endurance race

By Charles Measley

Last week I outlined how the Democrats have been implementing a long-term strategy of positioning their people into key places of influence such as the media and the education system. But in that sentence lies the main differences between the two philosophies of winning; to Democrats it’s an endurance race, when to Republicans it’s a sprint. Republicans view the battlefield as individual election cycles, whereas Democrats view it as a long-term endurance race, constantly campaigning and building a sustainable infrastructure to dominate elections in the long term.

Earlier this morning Breitbart had a piece outlining this perfectly. Obama’s donors will be financing a long-term project called Organizing For Action, which will focus on supporting the President’s long-term agenda. Also the President converted his campaign into a 501(c)4 organization called Organizing For America (which means they don’t have to disclose donor information). What long-term organizations did the Republican Party set up after our embarrassing loss in November? That’s right none!

This problem isn’t just with our party, but with our candidates as well. The Democrats are constantly building and molding their candidates. How many years has Frank Pallone been preparing to run for U.S. Senate? Seven years! After failing to get his parties nomination back in 2006 he has been preparing himself and his campaign to battle it out for Frank Lautenberg seat (once Lautenberg’s cold dead fingers are pried from his Senate seat). Pallone has been campaigning at full steam since 2010. He doesn’t take breaks between election cycles, he goes at it putting in 100%. Look over his FEC reports and you’ll see he’s constantly building his fundraising base and campaign structure.

NJ Republicans have known this battle was coming and now it is here in the 2014 race for the United States Senate. But who are the frontrunners on the Republican side? No one! The Republican Party needs to focus on the long-term race by building key infrastructure to win elections not just for this years cycle, but for years to come. We need to build up candidates well in advance if we expect to win Democrat held seats.

I don’t say these things because I dislike the party or party leadership, but because I love this party. I love the principles and beliefs that we stand for! I want to see us succeed and not just to win elections, but rather dominate them!

To be continued…

Part 1

• Tweet

The death of Republicanism, Part 1: the battlefield

By Charles Measley

When looking at politics I view it as if I’m staring at a battlefield or a chessboard: I ponder, “Where are the best places to move, position, and to attack?” Sometimes positioning your forces is the most critical move for a long-term victory. Strategically aligning forces in key places will not lead to a rapid victory, but it will ensure enduring long-term success. Sadly that’s exactly what the left has done.

Every time a Republican candidate steps out on the political battlefield, they are almost instantly placed at a disadvantage. Over the last few years, the left has positioned people with their mindset in the media, whether it’s a local paper like The Asbury Park Press or a national affiliate like ABC News. Through traditional media, the left focuses on a negative narrative towards the Republican candidate while allowing the Democrat to proceed worry free.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

The National Republican civil war has begun – and the GOP Establishment’s first shot has misfired

By Alan Steinberg

Prior to the election, I predicted on various media appearances that if Mitt Romney lost the presidential race, a national Republican civil war would ensue after the election between 1) the GOP establishment and 2) movement conservatives and grassroots Republicans.  I have been surprised how quickly my prediction was proven accurate.

The first major media riposte by the GOP establishment was a column published in the New York Times on December 3, 2012, entitled “Where  Have You Gone, Bill Buckley?” by David Welch, a former research director for the Republican National Committee .  It’s a good thing that Mr. Welch is a former research director, for in describing Bill Buckley, he demonstrated gross incompetence in historical research skills.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Republican Suckers

Making Sense, by Michael Reagan

Republicans had better learn from history — and from Ronald Reagan’s mistake.

President Obama and his fellow big-spenders in Congress are promising if they get higher tax rates today they’ll make even higher spending cuts tomorrow.

It’s an old sucker’s game. Republicans — and the rest of the country — should know it by now, because for three decades we’ve all been suckers.

If history is our guide, and Republicans in Congress don’t grow a spine, by this time next year we’ll have higher taxes, higher spending, more debt and a bigger government.

Twice before, Republicans have been fooled into playing the Democrats’ con game.

It happened to my father early in his first term when he sought to close a growing federal deficit caused by the deep economic recession. He believed Democrats in Congress would keep their pledge to make $3 in future spending cuts for every $1 in immediate tax increases.

In 1982 he signed a compromise tax bill with the horrible name of TEFRA — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act. And, when those promised spending cuts never materialized in Congress, TEFRA became one of the biggest regrets of my father’s presidency.

My father was duped by the duplicity of Democrats. And so was George H.W. Bush less than a decade later, when he foolishly allowed himself to be taken for the same ride.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet

Rasmussen: Respecting Voters Matters More Than Policy

Scott Rasmussen’s column, Respecting Voters Matters More Than Policy, is a must read for all political leaders.  Republican leaders and activists should print two copies…one for the refrigerator door and one for the bathroom mirror.  A third copy to use as a bookmark for the bedside Bible is not a bad idea.

The Republican Party has won a majority of the popular vote just once in the last six elections. That dismal track record followed a party revival in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan led the GOP to three straight popular vote majorities.

To understand what went wrong, it’s important to remember Reagan was an insurgent candidate who defeated the Republican establishment of his era. When Reagan left office, however, the old establishment reasserted control. They consistently nominated candidates for president who opposed Reagan in 1980 and consistently lost elections.

The difference is that Ronald Reagan believed in the American people and was skeptical of government. Today’s Republican establishment believes in government and is skeptical of the American people. That’s why most Republican voters today believe the party is out of touch with the base.

Consider Mitt Romney’s infamous comments about the 47 percent who are allegedly dependent upon government. After the election, Romney even said that President Obama won by giving “gifts” to these dependent Americans. The Republican establishment grumbles about makers versus takers.

Reagan had a different view. He asked, “How can we love our country and not love our countrymen?” When he passed a major tax reform bill, he was proud that it removed millions of low-income Americans from the income tax rolls. Reagan looked at low-income Americans and saw people who wanted an opportunity to work hard and get ahead. He saw a nation that was happy to extend a helping hand to all who were willing to work.

Read the rest of Scott’s column here.

Promotion: Click for full view

• Tweet

An election night of GOP disaster – and the emergence of John Boehner

By Alan J. Steinberg

In a negative sense, the Republican Party accomplished the impossible last night.  In a year of economic stagnation and anemic job growth, the GOP failed to win the White House against an incumbent president who had begun the campaign with a negative approval rating.   At the beginning of 2012, most pundits expected the GOP to regain control of the U.S. Senate; instead, the Republicans appear to have incurred a net loss of two seats.

The reelection victory of incumbent President  Barack Obama was primarily a matter of demographics.  In my PolitickerNJ column of August 5, 2012, I described this demographic factor as follows:

 

“Obama’s larger electoral vote base is largely a function of what I define as demographic political inelasticity, namely the tendency of certain demographic groups to vote overwhelmingly for one party or the other, regardless of the condition of the economy.  Specifically, the Democrats have maintained the loyalty of African-American, Puerto Rican, Mexican-American, and single women voters, regardless of the current economic doldrums….”

One could also add voters under 25 to the list of these Obama demographic constituencies.

Read the rest of this entry »

• Tweet