I am not a defeatist by any stretch of the imagination but that said, I am a total realist when it comes to spending campaign donations and getting volunteers to work campaigns.
There is no way that the GOP should concentrate in 2010 on races we have zero chance of winning. They are some liberal Dems that there is no way we would ever win those seats. The Dems had their best shot to unseat Collins this past year and she won handily. Not worth it to even try on Snowe and risk losing that seat to some far left liberal. No matter what anyone thinks of Snowe she is as good as we are probably going to get out of Maine and at least she supports our military.
The opposite of that was the Soros money and campaign staff he sent in to defeat Sen Jim Inhofe. Failed miserably and Inhofe won the race against the Soros candidate Andrew Rice handily. It was never in doubt but we did get a lot of Soros money in the state to help our economy.
You have to think outside the box on campaigns and make a determination with the resources and people you have on where you have the best chance of picking up seats. One of mine would be the seat in Orlando that Feeney barely lost and probably without voter fraud, we wouldn’t have lost that seat. Those are the seats you go after in 2010. Do well and money for candideates will start coming back into the coffers in 2012. This is a step by step process because in 1994, the RATs didn’t have the Soros money behind them. The GOP has to be smart and become a lean organization with a lot of fight.
We need the grassroots engaged in all GOP campaigns. You cannot beat having boots on the ground to help your candidates. We also need to take out the fundraisers that charge 45 to 50% of contributions to raise money. That is ridiculous. That’s what happened to a lot of donations at the NRCC we found out in 2008.
Smart politics tells you that in New England you cannot run a Jim Inhofe or Dr. Coburn candidate and in Oklahoma Snowe or Collins would never get elected. You get candidates to fit the philosophy of the area if you want to control the agenda.
If you don’t care if you win but stand on principle, then we will keep losing elections. You can agree with a candidate 80% of the time and still support them or at least that was the Ronald Reagan philosophy. Demanding purity from candidates is going to get them defeated in a lot of states.
I don’t agree 100% with Dr. Coburn (almost but not quite) but you can bet I will be out there working in his campaign to send him back to the Senate. I blogged for Inhofe in 2008 and once again I don’t always agree 100% but I wouldn’t trade him or Coburn.
What I wouldn’t do if I controlled the RNC or NRSC is give one red cent to Specter or Snowe when they run or if Collins runs again. Let the three of them earn their own money to run. Wouldn’t take one cent away from other Republican candidates to support any one of the three of them.
I agree, but what if you only agree with them 10% of the time, and they usually vote with the Dark Side? In today's situation, where the Republicans don't control either house, and in fact with the almost constant defections, can't even mount a filibuster in the Senate, it would seem s good time to "clean house". Sure you lose that seat for the Party, but maybe you put a few elections in districts that are close, back in the R column because people will vote for a party that "Stands for Something" rather than having a "doesn't make dimes worth of difference" attitude. So you might lose one, but gain 3 or more. Something to think about anyway.
Great post. Agree with everything you said. There are some states and districts where conservative, in-line Republicans just aren't going to win. We shouldn't waste our time, nor our money trying to do otherwise.