Posted on 03/16/2009 6:36:21 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
GOP strategists and party leaders are increasingly worried that the party’s run of bad news over the last month and a half is set to continue this week as the Republican National Committee (RNC) prepares to release what are expected to be markedly low fundraising numbers on Friday.
The RNC has consistently outraised the Democratic National Committee on a month-by-month basis. Observers say that streak is likely to end this month.
. . . . .
Steele already had a high bar to meet; in January, under former Chairman Robert “Mike” Duncan, the committee raised more than $13.1 million, including about $7 million in transfers from Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign.
. . . . .
The majority of RNC donors hand over smaller checks, largely as a result of the committee’s vaunted mail and phone programs. But Steele jeopardized the party’s standing with those donors as well, thanks to a public spat with radio host Rush Limbaugh and a flub on a question about abortion, which drew criticism from major voices in the social conservative movement.
“Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and they want nothing to do with the RNC and when you call them asking for money they hang up on you,” Limbaugh said in a March 2 monologue directed specifically at Steele.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
No clue.
However, I kept receiving McCain "my friends" letters until I responded in writing to tell the RINOs to go to hell, and then, only one stray McCain-Palin request showed up, which I promptly ignored. I haven't received any written solicitations or phone calls since.
What percentage that are not with us, in your estimation, is acceptable to criticize ?
I agree w/ you, & that's why I did NOT vote for Juan McCain....& as far as I'm concerned, if you voted for him, you supported him.
You may be interested in this...
The money is going into grass roots organizations opposing high profile celebrigands like Harry Reid and Chris Dodd. Here is a couple of examples. Amateurs with passion, abhoring the status quo. Looking for a new brand of young bold conservatives!
www.rejectreid.com out of Reno, Nevada
www.dumpchrisdodd.com out of Woodbury, CT.
Yes, at least, and he promptly turned the funds over to the RINO-infested RNC.
I think that he has been quite candid lately. He is a leftist and he is just being more open about it. The question is why Republicans have been selecting leaders like Steele, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, etc., etc., who do nothing but betray us again and again and again.
i keep getting emails for McCain even though my standard reply to them is: eat shit and die, RINO.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? So if someone is with us "only" 99% of the time instead of 100% of the time, that puts them on the same level as Arlen Specter? (whose with us only 40% of time)
I guess the purist mindset here is you're either with us 100% of the time, or you're RINO scum and deserve to be destroyed. Talk about cutting off your nose to spit in your face. That's certainly not the mindset Ronald Reagan had. Hell, Reagan wasn't even with us 99% of the time.
The funny thing is even the politicians you worship and pretend are with us 100% of the time are not perfect. You just pull a monkey "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" move and stick your fingers in your ears whenever they do something that doesn't fit the deity-like pedestal you've placed them on. Your hero Jim DeMint, for example, refused to say anything negative about Hillary during her confirmation hearings, and publicly stated that he thinks she'll be "one of our nations greatest secretaries of state". (that's his exact quote in the quotation marks) But you simply ignore that little tidbit because it flies in the face of your mindset that DeMint is 100% perfect and everything he says is gospel.
By that simple fact, it shows DeMint is not 100% in agreement with you (I certainly would have "questioned" Hillary's credentials for SOS if I had been at that committee hearing, and I suspect you would have well), therefore using your own twisted "logic", he's RINO scum and doesn't deserve our support.
So no, the poster is not suggesting we should support a liberal RINO douchebag like Snowe or Specter. He was quite clear -- a person doesn't have to be 100% perfect all the time to earn our support. For example, anyone who agrees with me 85% of the time is certainly acceptable in my book, and is far better than the likes of Arlen Specter will ever be. Too bad they're RINO scum in yours.
Bunch of country club milquetoast DC politicians and corporate types, not a street fighter among them.
Buzz off RNC
You are playing right into the hands of the Democrats.
I also like the National Republican Trust PAC
see Post #32
I quit giving to the RNC years ago.
The incidence of Tea Parties will continue to mount as the “silent majority” have been stirred to their core values.
This will be one long hot summer of discontent. Anti-incumbent fever will heat-up. Get involved now. Too much talk and not enough action.
In Ridgefield, CT the venue for next Saturday’s Tea Party was changed to accommodate the constantly growing estimate of the crowd.
We are witnessing the germination of nothing less than a new American Revolution. This protest will dwarf the anti-war protests of the late 1960s. It will only fade away when Congress is cleansed of all the dead-heads and dead-hearts.
We’ve got plenty of work in front of us. Start today. He who hesitates is lost!
BTW Just in case any of them are looking RESPECT is the respect of respected People.Which excludes anyone in the Rat party right on DOWN to it's top.
My general rule of thumb is the politician has to vote the conservative position at least 80% of the time to be considered a "reliable" conservative (the ACU uses this standard too, but we shouldn't just look at the ACU score alone to determine if they're 80% conservative), and someone I'd consider supporting in the primary election. To be considered at least acceptable in the general election, they have to vote conservative at least 60% of the time (a Republican who votes conservative 60% of the time would be a moderate "hold your nose" squish). I may even hold my nose and elect someone who votes conservative 51% of the time, but probably only if their RAT opponent is pure evil and MUST be defeated. But if the Republican is voting conservative like 30-40% or less, they should just quite the farce of running as a "Republican" and join the RAT party.
There are handful of exceptions to this rule -- for example, both Ray LaHood and Peter King vote conservative over 60% of the time and I wouldn't support them under any circumstances. But those are generally very special circumstances, for example LaHood is clearly working to destroy the GOP from within and elect Democrats, and Peter King is clearly a Clinton yes-man, and a terrorist sympathizer to boot. (for more reasons than just his impeachment vote)
I don't make exceptions or give them a break based on their geographic region. A Republican in South Carolina and a Republican in New York both have to get over 80% conservative record to be one of the good guys in my mind. (Also someone who has spent YEARS voting liberal and decides to morph into a conservative overnight to get nominated for an office is not going to get my support. I look at their lifetime records). The GOP is a national party and ought to have a national unified message, and I don't think running as Democrat-lite makes candidates more "Electable" in states with larger Democrat populations. It's going to be difficult for a Republican to win in Rhode Island, regardless of whether they are a RINO or a conservative.
Fixed it.
Thx for that
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.