Club for Stupidity

Earlier in the week I came across an article in Politico which I wanted to touch on once I had the opportunity. The article reinforces the theme that we have been talking about regarding the Republican Party's foolish drive to the right at the expense of shedding its few remaining moderate leaders.

Specifically, the piece discusses the influence of the Club for Growth, a free-spending, anti-tax, pro-business independent group and PAC which has taken as its chief responsibility a mission to purge the Republican Party of its moderate members. Over the past several cycles, the Club has provided enormous financial resources to conservative candidates who have challenged sitting Republicans who the Club, and others, perceive as "RINOs", or Republicans in Name Only. Incidentally, this is not my way of trying to be funny: the Club actually started what it calls "RINO Watch."

The Club first really waded into big political races in 2002, when it endorsed a score of candidates for political office. However, it made its first big splash two years later, when it heavily backed conservative Pennsylvania congressman Pat Toomey in his primary challenge against then four-term Senator Arlen Specter, a popular moderate in the Keystone State. In what was a very close race, Specter barely survived by 51-to-49, a margin much closer than anyone anticipated. Even in defeat, the Club had flexed its muscle, and made a name for itself in Republican politics. It had also backed several winners in the 2004 cycle.

Two years later, the Club scored one of its biggest victories to date, when it strongly backed Tim Walberg against moderate freshman Republican congressman Joe Schwarz. Riding on big money from the Club for Growth, Walberg just edged out Schwarz in the primary. In the general, Walberg won a close race, foreshadowing future problems. Still, for the most part, 2006 was another strong year for the Club for Growth. It provided robust backing to Bill Sali in ID-01 and Doug Lamborn in CO-05, ultraconservatives who won very close primary contests. However, its campaign to beat the most liberal GOP Senator, Lincoln Chafee, fell short when Chafee beat Cranston mayor Stephen Laffey by 54-to-46.

This cycle, the Club for Growth has not been as active in primaries, but it nonetheless was able to put a big notch on its RINO-elimination belt when it helped oust moderate GOP Rep. Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland's First District. With huge financial backing from the Club, state Sen. Andy Harris was able to decisively beat the popular Gilchrest in the GOP primary. The Club did encounter a big set-back when it failed to beat one of its largest nemeses, Alaska pork barrel king Rep. Don Young, who survived his primary over a club-backed opponent by just 304 votes out of over 100,000 cast.

I wanted to focus a bit more on this Maryland race, which the Politico article also examines. Maryland's First District is no swing district. It's PVI score is R+10, which is because President Bush won the distirct 63-36 in 2004, and 57-40 in 2000. For his part, Congressman Gilchrest had not received less than 60 percent of the votes in his contests since his second campaign in 1992. In his last three races, he got 69, 76, and 77 percent, respectively. Indeed, while Gilchrest has been one of the most moderate GOPers in the House, and thus not fully in line with his red district, he has remained very popular. There is little question that barring a Mahoney-esque scandal, he would never have been beaten by a Democrat in this district. This is why the Club's successful backing of Harris was so foolish.

For their part, Democrats nominated Frank Kratovil, a conservative Democrat and county state's attorney (basically the DA or head prosecutor for the county) who has law-and-order credentials which make him more palatable in this district. Sensing an opportunity, and also because House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen are from Maryland, the national Democratic Party has begun spending heavily in this district. As of the most recent numbers, the DCCC has dropped $875,000 here. No small sum. And Gilchrest's formal endorsement of Kratovil has provided a big boast to the Democrat in a district where independent voters still think very highly of the outgoing congressman. As of this writing, the race is seen as a dead-heat.

Simply put, Democrats should never be competitive in this district. It just should not happen. Yes, the bad national environment for Republicans has buoyed Kratovil and obviously hobbled Harris, but this is still an GOP district. The reason Democrats have a chance here is because of the Club for Growth's political stupidity in pushing Harris. And make no mistake, the Club's financial backing was one of the key reasons Harris was able to overtake Gilchrest.

The Club's lack of pragmatism in this and other races, some we mention above, demonstrates the simple political dangers of overt extremism when moderation is more appropriate. Look at Michigan's Seventh District again. This is a GOP district, but not hugely so, so a moderate like Joe Schwarz probably fit the area better than his successor, the Club-backed Tim Walberg. Then again, it is fair to argue that conservatives can survive and thrive in representing more moderate districts, and vice-versa, as Wayne Gilchrest's longtime electoral success demonstrated. That's true.

But it is also accurate to say that such ill-fitting members might be open to trouble at some point down the road, and they therefore might endanger a seat that their party should never lose. And sure enough, all indications at this moment are that Rep. Walberg is down in his re-election campaign. Walberg is facing a well-financed opponent who the DCCC has also spent heavily on. Facing the loss of a stalwart member, the NRCC has actually been spending here to, a fact which the Politico articles wryly notes:

Still, the club’s investment in GOP efforts may end up costing the party more than it saves it, forcing the National Republican Congressional Committee to spend money in what might have been forget-about-’em races if more moderate Republicans were on the ballot.

The NRCC has ponied up $330,000 to defend Walberg and is under pressure to come in to help Harris. The Club for Growth, too, has been forced to re-ante, coming in with a $175,000 ad buy of its own in the Michigan race and a similar expenditure in Maryland, where the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sniffs blood in the bay and has reserved more than $1 million worth of airtime to finish Harris off.

(Let me just add that while Walberg has been badly hurt by John McCain's decision to puclicly pull out of Michigan, thereby allowing Barack Obama to run up a bigger-than-initially-expected margin at the top of the ballot, Walberg was still facing a close contest with his opponent even before McCain packed up his tent.)

You think the NRCC might want that money back for another race or races? Now, I readily concede that in this election year where the GOP brand is poison, even a Rep. Joe Schwarz might be in trouble. However, we don't have Schwarz in office; we have Walberg, and he is losing. Therefore, we can rightly infer that his ousting of Schwarz may not have been in the GOP's best long-term interests.

The same is obviously true in Maryland's First District. Andy Harris may go on to win next month, in which case he will likely be safe in his seat (barring drastic redistricting) for a while. At this moment, however, his candidacy is causing the national GOP heartburn by making close a race that should never really be close.

The whole point I am trying to make is that the Club for Growth and groups like it are not politically smart or productive in the longterm. And the Club stands out because of its enormous wealth and its effectiveness in carrying out its mission of defeating moderates within the Republican Party's ranks, or so-called RINOs.

Sometimes, I concede that the Club's political moves make sense and are not necessarily politically stupid. Take Colorado's Fifth District. The Club was a backer of then-state senator and now congressman Doug Lamborn. With that backing, Lamborn survived a nasty and crowded GOP primary by 27-25 to succeed a retiring incumbent. While there was some initial fear that the prickly Lamborn could make this R+16 seat vulnerable, in the end he won 59-40. Therefore, the Club's backing here really was inconsequential: after all, this is Colorado Springs we are talking about! This district is so red, it would be almost impossible for any conservative to lose the seat.

On the flip side, let's look at a district we have been spending some time on recently: Idaho's First District. When the seat opened in 2006, a crowded primary field formed for the safe Republican seat. Here too the Club weighed in with support for a candidate, namely ultra-conservative state Rep. Bill Sali. Sali won his primary 26-19-18, and then won the general by 50-45. This year, he is in real danger of losing the general due to his erratic behavior and out-of-the-mainstream positions. Think about that a moment: Sali might not be in the mainstream in Idaho, one of the reddest states in America. As a result, he is making vulnerable a race which would never be vulnerable. Now, I note that Sali is a very rare case because he is simply a strange fellow. But he is another example of a Club-backed candidate who is so extreme he endangers what should be a safe Republican seat. I have little doubt that if several of Sali's 2006 opponents had emerged from the primary instead of him, this seat would never have been close to being lost, either in 2006 or 2008.

Lamborn and Sali are just two cases. There are assuredly other I won't get into. Andy Harris and MD-01 are even worse because the district is less conservative than those in central Colorado and western Idaho. The Club for Growth, yet again, demostrated a lack of pragmatism, and the national Republicans are going to be pay the biggest price if Harris falls.

We have been writing a lot about about the marginalization of the GOP nationally, and in particular in Congress. After November 4, there is a very good chance that there will be only a very small handful of Republicans in Congress left who represent Democratic or Democratic-leaning districts. While many people in the national party might not think this is a big deal, it is. The Club for Growth has led the charge to "purify" the GOP of hated RINOs, and in the process has sped up a process of classic over-reaching. They have helped turn what was a good hand into a poor one by trying to stretch many center right districts and states beyond what they were willing to go politically.

I do not want to overstate the Club for Growth's influence. There are many wealthy PACs that back candidates of all stripes, and just because one particular group throws its money around, does not automatically make it a kingmaker in politics. The Club is not the sole reason the GOP has moved too far to the right in Congress. But the Club does stand out because of its largese and its past successes, and it well illustrates the need for moderation in politics. The Club has been a disruptive force for the national GOP, and its activities have done much more harm to the Republican cause, than good.

Being principled and having a consistent ideology is important to demonstrate real leadership, I don't question that. But a big part of leading is getting elected, and the Club for Growth's activities really endanger its party's longterm ability to expand its map and elect and its members. So, while the Club may elect a handful of ultra-conservatives here and there, it is really losing the war for the Republicans.

The fates of Tim Walberg and Andy Harris may soon prove this.