Republicans should go for the jugular

The GOP is within striking distance of taking over the U.S. Senate in 2011. If you believe our recent analysis (or that of Larry Sabato), the GOP would find itself with 48 seats in the Upper Chamber versus 52 for the Dems, if the election were held today. However, why should the party stop there?

With Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, nothing seems impossible and therefore, the party faithful should go full-steam ahead to help take back our country by focusing also on the following races:

The despicable Barbara Boxer is up for re-election and recent polls show that a Republican could beat her. Like Massachusetts, California has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate in many years, but perhaps now is the time.

When Sen. Christopher Dodd (D) announced his retirement, this race went from a likely GOP pickup to a likely Democratic hold. However, with neighbor Massachusetts show how best to beat a Democrat, perhaps the GOP isn’t dead here after all.

While not up for reelection this year, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) would certainly be sought out by the GOP for a vote if the other races produce a 50-50 tie come November. Lieberman – the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate – has made it no secret that he is tired of the Democratic Party that he current caucuses with, and if the opportunity presents itself, he might just bolt the party that he left in 2006 all together.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D) has done very well as a Democrat in a pretty reliable Republican state (save for Obama in ’08), serving first as governor and then two terms as a U.S. Senator. However, it looks like Rep. Mike Pence is thinking about joining the race, which would give the GOP a top-tier challenger. One might recall that in 1980, Evan’s father Birch was defeated for reelection for the same office by someone named Dan Quayle.

Sen. Patty Murray (D) was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, 1996 and 2004 by healthy margins. If the GOP has any chance of actually taking the majority this year, knocking off Murray might be essential. In 2004, Murray beat Rep. George Nethercutt, who joined the House in 1994, after knocking off then-Speaker Thomas Foley (D) as part of the Republican Revolution.

Sen. Russ Feingold has represented the Cheese State since 1992, winning between 51 and 55 percent of the vote in each of his three contests. Safe to say that if Feingold goes down, the U.S. Senate will be in GOP hands

Last night I attended a candidates' forum hosted by our county level GOP for its committee members. I'm not a committee member, but since I called to inquire, I was invited. I am encouraged. The stage was filled with six candidates vying for the GOP endorsement. All six had small government, fiscal responsibility, national defense and pro-life messages. Of the six, two or three look like pretty scrappy candidates with energy and the ability to think on their feet. The other three seemed weak in terms of presentation, energy level or other factors. I spoke with our county GOP leader and he is very pleased with the slate of potential candidates, and said he is sick of going to the polls with lukewarm candidates. It sounds like the party is getting the message, at least in some quarters.

This is all in Pennsylvania's 13th District, a gerrymandered district which encompasses parts of NE Philadelphia and Eastern Montgomery County. We're currently "represented" by Allyson Schwartz - a partisan Dem sheep. The endorsement will be made on Feb 8th, and then we'll see. Most of the candidates said they'd withdraw if not endorsed. I suspect there will be a primary though, since one candidate said he'd run regardless and a second refused to be pinned down.

Steele shouldn't have mentioned it AT ALL. Claiming to have been discrete (while volunteering you sent the money) represented the end of being discrete.

There is no harm in doing so after the election. By then, it is too late for the Coakley campaign to launch the inevitable (Scott Brown: REPUBLICAN) attack ad.

After the election, you can't hide the money, anyway. So you might as well acknowledge it. You just don't do like the morons over at the DSCC, and issue a press release along with the money, because that puts the national party in the middle of a local race. The only reason to do it is because the Democrats are too insecure and self-promoting to let an apple-polishing opportunity go by. It is good to see that Steele has more sense than that.

-- There is no harm in doing so after the election. By then, it is too late for the Coakley campaign to launch the inevitable (Scott Brown: REPUBLICAN) attack ad. --

Steele mentioned RNC participation before the election was held, although it was probably too late (as you note) for the DEMs to produce and distribute attack ads based on Steele's statement.

But the general principle of "discrete giving" is no more. Agreed that the transaction can't be hidden, on account of reporting requirements, but it need not be touted at any point.

My sense is that Steele touted the giving in order to gain respect (and potentially money) from conservatives who have little use for the national party apparatus.

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.