Republicans should go for the jugular

The GOPNation ^ | January 22, 2010 | The GOPNation.com

[Think free or die]

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.

[Haiku Guy]

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.

[Cboldt]

-- 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.