Politico has a good article today on the NRSC’s latest candidate recruitment. The committee - which is run by conservative Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) - has been recruiting moderate Republicans to run for Senate in 2010.
The party’s top choice for Florida’s open Senate seat is popular Gov. Charlie Crist, who raised eyebrows earlier this year with his vigorous advocacy of President Barack Obama’s stimulus package — he even went so far as to appear with Obama at a Florida rally in February. In Connecticut, the national GOP has lobbied former Rep. Rob Simmons — who holds a higher lifetime rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action group than Specter does — to challenge Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd.
In Delaware, where there is widespread consensus that just one Republican — Rep. Michael Castle, the co-founder of the moderate Republican Main Street Partnership — can win Joe Biden’s former seat, the push is on to get him to announce for the Senate.
In the Midwest, there’s Illinois Rep. Mark Kirk, another leading centrist viewed as the GOP’s best hope of capturing a blue-state Senate seat — the one Obama vacated after he was elected president.
On the West Coast, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn of Texas is hoping to land self-proclaimed moderate businesswoman Carly Fiorina to run against Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in a state that gave Obama 61 percent of the vote.
It is a quiet and pragmatic move on the part of the GOP. They are looking for candidates that represent the state’s local values over party ideologues and they’re specifically targeting states in which the Democratic senators have "screwed up".
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) - the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee which oversaw the bailout - is a good example of a Senator who fell from popularity in his home state. Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), on the other hand, was never popular to begin with due to his ties to former Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL).
But the party is moving further to the right and many right-wing activists have already been trying to purge moderate members that are currently in office. Similarly, they are trying to ensure their party doesn’t move any further left with the new challengers.
"Sen. Cornyn has done a great job with recruitment," said Carl Forti, a Republican consultant who headed the National Republican Congressional Committee’s independent expenditure effort in 2006. "The ironic thing in the House and Senate is you need moderate candidates to win if you want to be successful. That’s why you currently see Pennsylvania Republicans looking for a moderate to take on Toomey, because of the belief that while Toomey is fine in a primary, he can’t win the general election because he’s too conservative. This will be an ongoing problem for the party"…
…Still, despite the focus on a moderate-rich recruiting class, it’s not a foregone conclusion that all of them will be on the ballot in November 2010. In Connecticut, Florida and Pennsylvania, viable conservative candidates are already running against the national party’s darlings.
In Connecticut, state Sen. Sam Caligiuri is running against Simmons and is expected to attack his moderate voting record in Congress. If Crist runs, he’ll have to defend his support of the stimulus against a more conservative opponent, former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio. And any Republican who jumps into the Pennsylvania race will have to get past Toomey, whom conservatives laud for forcing Specter out of the party.
"It’s ironic but not surprising that the Senate Republicans would see a path that would be blazed by moderates," said Republican pollster Adam Geller. "There’s a chunk of GOP voters that won’t make the political calculation and rather would stand with their principles, even if it means they lose."
One could see the recruitment of these "RINOs" (or Republicans-In-Name-Only) as an experiment. If some can get past the primary it will demonstrate where the GOP base is most ideological and where it is more pragmatic. If some of these moderate Republicans can win their General Elections, this may prove to be an important strategy that could dramatically shift GOP campaign operations in the years to come.
But for 2010, the best that Republicans like Cornyn can hope for is gaining more insight as to how to retake power.
The biggest news story today in the political scene is the party-switch by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. As one of the last moderate Republicans in the Senate, Specter was facing a tough primary from former GOP Congressman Pat Toomey.
From his statement today:
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
But it goes on…
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
(The emphasis is our own)
Was Specter afraid of losing his primary? Prominent Republican leaders seem to think so.
From a statement by Chairman of the NRSC, Sen. John Cornyn:
"Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve."
And RNC Chairman Michael Steele seemed to agree:
Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.
Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.
Was this really why Specter changed parties?
Until today, Specter had consistently said it was important for him to remain a Republican. In March, he was quoted by The Hill as saying "I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense — and I don’t want to overstate this — is a national asset because if one was gone, you’d only have 40, the Democrats would have 60, and they would control all of the mechanisms of government."
He was also quoted in Pennsylvania Avenue as saying "And because if we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check, and the Obama big spending plans."
So today’s decision certainly seems peculiar.
A Rasmussen poll from Friday showed Toomey to be leading with a majority of voters.
From Rasmussen’s website:
Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by 21 points in an early look at Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican Primary. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters statewide say they’d vote for Toomey while just 30% would support Specter.
Specter is viewed favorably by 42% of Pennsylvania Republicans and unfavorably by 55%, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state. Those are stunningly poor numbers for a long-term incumbent senator. Specter was first elected to the Senate in 1980.
Toomey, who served in the House from 1999 to 2005, earns positive reviews from 66% and negative comments from just 19%.
Specter had already released an ad against Toomey in anticipation for their primary battle, and the two had been telling voters for a while that the other was unelectable.
Recently we commented on how the GOP was purging their more moderate members. A story from Politico on Sunday seems to confirm this phenomenon.
Specter is a moderate Senator who probably was more in line with the Democrats than the Republicans. But it would probably be naïve to say this move was not because of the Toomey challenge.
As a party, the GOP is moving further to the right. This means that some centrist Republicans are leaving the party. In fact, as few as 21% of Americans still consider themselves Republicans according to recent polls. Nate Silver describes this as a Republican Death Spiral.
Specter was on shaky ground with Republicans in Pennsylvania, but he will be a voice for moderate (former) Republicans, Democrats, and independents now that he has switched parties. Now he has a better chance of returning to Washington in 2011.
It has been quite a while since we gave you a detailed update of the Coleman-Franken “race” in Minnesota, so we thought we would do so today.
A 3-judge panel ruled unanimously last week that Democrat Al Franken won the election for U.S. Senate back in November by 312 votes. Norm Coleman argued that Minnesota’s variety of procedures to count absentee ballots violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution and disenfranchised over 4,000 voters. Politico reports on how the panel responded.
While acknowledging that errors were bound to happen in any election, the court said that the Minnesota Senate election was free from fraud and that errors did not reach a constitutional violation of equal protection.
"There is no evidence of a systematic problem of disenfranchisement in the state’s election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures," the judges wrote. "To the contrary, the general election resulted in a ‘fair expression’ of the voters of Minnesota."
Attorney Ben Ginsberg - a legend of the Bush v. Gore battle, and is representing Coleman - said the judges spent "so much time in patting their back on the Minnesota system" that they "missed the issue" that thousands of voters are still being disenfranchised. "We’ll be at peace if all Minnesotans are enfranchised."
Staying on message, NRSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn told supporters in a fundraising email that the Court’s decision was "fundamentally misguided" and that Democrats were being hypocritical. "It’s frankly shocking that many of the same Democrats who so loudly decried voter disenfranchisement during the Florida recount in 2000 have so quickly run away from that principle when it no longer fits their political agenda" said Cornyn’s email.
But the Democrats are hitting back with a radio ad. The ad tells Coleman to "stop putting his political ambition ahead of what’s right for Minnesota."
"Enough is enough," says the announcer, noting that Franken won the original election, the recount and a legal challenge. "America is in an economic crisis - and Minnesota faces unique challenges of its own. Minnesota deserves two Senators and voters deserve to have their verdict stand without delay."
Coming one day after a three-judge panel in Minnesota ruled that Franken "received the highest number of votes legally cast," the ad also represents a coordinated Democratic push to end the race.
The DNC-funded ad is playing on news radio stations in the Twin Cities.
Coleman, however, has already appealed the recent decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which has agreed to review the case. However, there is some question as to whether a quorum of Justices can be reached.
Two of the seven Minnesota Justices have already recused themselves because they served on the State Canvassing Board that has ruled on a great number of issues in this case. Now the legal community is wondering whether there will be three more recusals.
Justices Lori Gildea and Christopher Dietzen donated to Coleman campaigns, while Helen Meyer gave money to Sen. Paul Wellstone, whom Coleman challenged in 2002. These are certainly grounds for recusal.
But in order for a quorum of the Court to be reached - and to therefore decide the case - at least four of the seven Justices must be present. It is pretty unusual for a case to be undecided by the Court due to recusals.
If it does happen, the issue would be dead and Al Franken would finally take his seat in the U.S. Senate. If the Justices do not recuse themselves…well, we don’t know where we’ll be a month from now.
