Friday, February 13, 2009

Three reasons never to give a dime to the National Republican Senatorial Committee

"Collins, Specter, and Snowe have all voted yes, and needless to say, no Democrat's going to torpedo The One's moment by switching. The deed is done."


  1. Dunno. I'm never quite sure when primary challenges help, and when they hurt. Should the NRSC force all candidates to self-fund when they have a primary challenger, even when they think that the primary challenger will be weaker in the general?

  2. My sentiments exactly. I will not give to the NRSC until they publicly declare that they will try to defeat these three in primaries. If any retire before opposition by the NRSC, then I'll never give money to the NRSC EVER, full stop.

  3. The failure of Republican primaries to remove the deadbeats and deadwood is responsible for the present problem. I understand that the party feels an obligation to current office holders. That is fundamental to having a party. But at some point it must make demands of them.

    In the last few years we have had a number of very high profile cases where the party was weakened by its misplaced loyalty. Arlen Specter is pretty well at the top of that list already.

    And, no, it is not better to have a RINO than a Democrat in office. The RINO hurts the rest of the party, now and in the future. The Democrat is just the opposition. Far better to have an opponent in one district or senate seat than to have someone who will cost you votes in others.

    Anyone who questions this math can look at the situation we are in right freeking now.