(Cross posted at The Next Right)

The Politico today covers the decision by the NRCC to pull funding from Congressional races for good, conservative challengers so they can prop up the campaigns of flailing Republicans.

Under normal circumstances, I would expect the NRCC to behave this way. They are, after all, a campaign organization run by friends and colleagues of those currently serving. They will protect their own first, and build our numbers second.

What makes me uneasy with that now, is the specific names the Politico mentions.

GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.

Frankly, it hasn’t caught me by surprise. All of those listed voted for the $700 billion – or is it $850 billion or $1.5 trillion, I guess it depends on whose scoring it – boondoggle foisted upon the taxpayers. These guys are solidly Republican living in solidly Republican districts, and they’re suddenly at risk of losing their seats just two short weeks after pissing on the taxpayer? Hrrrrmmmm… I wonder why.

What should stand out in particular are the names Shadegg and Terry. They’re among the sellouts who switched from No votes to Yes votes. Apparently they guessed wrong. That vote for political expediency may cost real conservatives – like Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, perhaps the best candidate we have running this cycle – a seat. It may guarantee that the one chance we have to hold a seat – any seat – in NM is lost.

It is unfortunate that the NRCC feels it’s better to protect weak Republicans than to elect strong ones.

Well I won’t be supporting the NRCC until we see a new Chairman – one who is willing to support good candidates, not just good friends.

Once every few months, the RNC rolls out the next e-mail from Member Services pimping another retarded looking little elephant as the hook for their latest fundraising effort. Today’s e-mail, however, is absolutely the best.

Embroidered with the official logo of the RNC, Sam is decked out in red, white and blue and is sure to be the hit of your July Fourth party.

Well sure he is. Because my friends are such drooling, Neanderthal simpletons that they’re overly amused by a cheap piece of Burmese fluff. You should have seen how crazy they went when I waved a lit match in front of them. It was like the beginning scene of 2001 with the monkeys going spastic over the giant chocolate bar.

Come on, seriously. The gang at the RNC must be embarrassed to send these out. This is truly one of those “just hold your nose and do what the finance people ask” messages.

I find it hard to believe that the response to these things is staggeringly successful, but they must be. Otherwise why would an institution so crazed with appearance and pomp trot this stupid thing out for every major and minor holiday. After all, there was Max, Maxine, and Patrick. Now Sam joins the line up.

I guess it escaped the attention of the RNC that the most famous Maxine in DC is Maxine Waters. The two most famous Patricks are Kennedy and Leahy. The most famous Max is Baucus.

To be fair, moderately famous Sams include Republican Rep. Johnson from Texas, Republican Rep Graves from Missouri, and GOP Senator Brownback. However, the best known Sams in DC history were likely Rayburn and Nunn – both Dems.

Honestly, can’t the RNC do better to reward participation than hand out stuffed bears named after Democrats? Why not give away an elephants named Newt, Goldwater, or Ronald? There would be no mistaking that those were named after GOP icons.

With reports yesterday that Obama raised another $40 million dollars last month McCain’s team needs to be seriously concerned. This $40 million, when added to January’s $32 million, brings his total reported Q1 haul to $127 million. That’s a whopping chunk of change.

Granted he’ll have to spend an awful lot of it to beat Hillary. He’s currently out raising her almost two to one. He’ll blow through a lot of cash between now and the nomination, but anything that’s left (assuming he eschews the general election funding provided by the FEC) can go straight to his general election account. If he continues raising $30 million or more per month, he could conceivably end up up more in the bank to transfer than McCain will get from the FEC funds.

What should really make McCain nervous, though, is the situation at the FEC and the fact that he may not get those funds. The FEC is currently missing commissioners and cannot count a quorum. Without a quorum present, the FEC cannot approve the disbursement of those Presidential funds to the McCain camp.

The Senate won’t recess because they do not want Bush to make recess appointments. The Republicans and Democrats have relatively inflexible positions on the current crop of appointments, and don’t appear likely to blink. With that stalemate in place, and no reason for the Democratic majority to overturn it, McCain could well enter the fall campaign completely unarmed.

McCain’s team is currently raising about $12 million per month, but blowing through it just as fast. If they’re not banking any dough, it is possible the campaign will enter September without any money at all. Now, the GOP could take great offense to the Senate Dems using procedural maneuvers to keep their candidate broke and rally in large numbers to show J-Mac the money love. If that’s going to happen, though, it needs to start soon.

The Bush team in 2004 considered skipping the general fund and raising money, but they determined the costs would simply be too great. To raise the $75 million they’d be giving up, they would actually need to raise about $150 million – due largely to the high overhead of the Ranger/Pioneer model of fundraising.

Obama’s model has a much lower overhead. It’s possible he could raise vast sums of money on a small dollar model. He’ll have a lot more ready cash for a much smaller investment of time.

McCain’s team needs to get on the stick and go open-source. They should be e-mailing their list with the facts I have just laid out, and urging every single Republican to give to McCain. They could even be honest and upfront about it. Here’s a sample of the e-mail I would send.

While we may not have seen eye to eye on issues in the past, I hope I can count on you now. We, as a party, face an incredible challenge. In just 7 months, I will face the best funded Democrat to run for President in generations. As the liberals are stuffing the campaign coffers of my opponent, their allies in the US Senate are working to deny you a candidate.

As the Senate holds up confirmation of commissioners to the FEC, I am awaiting approval of the funds that will carry our party’s message in the fall. Roughly $80 million dollars is riding on a high stakes game of chicken. The Democrats want us to back down. They want to hold my campaign hostage and prevent the disbursement of the money we need for the election in an effort to deliver a defeat to the President.

Whether you agree with me, and whether you support President Bush and his policies, we must unite as a party, and beat the Democrats at their own game. How? We must ask every single Republican to make a donation of just $5 to this campaign.

If every single Republican who voted for President Bush in 2004 gave $5, we could unite as a party, raise more than $300 million dollars, and fund our election without the FEC.

Take the power out of the Democrats hands. Show them the people of this great nation will not allow them to deny half of us our candidate and our vote. Show them that like any family we may have our internal squabbles, but we will not hesitate to come together against someone who threatens us.

Please, ask every Republican you know to give $5. If you can give more, or they can give more, please ask them to do so. We

That’s it. Begin a fundraising drive to combat the situation you are in. Beat Obama at the small dollar giving and use the fact that the Democrats are purposefully blocking the FEC appointments in an effort to screw you against them.

If they don’t do something, and keep spending money under the theory that the FEC situation will be resolved before August, they run the real risk that they go into the general out gunned to the tune of $150 million or more.

It seems Danny Glover over at the Beltway Blogroll (who, unlike David, at least didn’t refer to me as a friend since we’ve never met) took up David’s battle flag and charged up the hill today.

Turk, a competitor of All’s in the e-politics world, took the attack up several notches with a post headlined “I’ve Lost What Little Respect For David All I Had Left.”
“David is, by all accounts, a master of self-promotion,” Turk wrote. “It’s entirely possible that he made a conscious choice to take the contrarian position solely to further his agenda of making David everything that David can be. … I think David is calculating and has come to the conclusion that taking these positions gets him noticed. I think that’s why he took his post against RedState and circulated it to the media (as Erick alleges).”

When All responded, Turk pounced again. Among other things, he criticized All for not having embraced efforts to improve the RightRoots online fundraising site that failed miserably last year and for instead building a competing site, Slatecard.

I honestly don’t know where to begin on this one. Let’s start with the softballs and bat some out of the park, then we can work on those wild pitches.

First, David is anything but “a competitor … in the e-politics world.” The fact is, I have a day job with a major trade association. I do some consulting work on the side, but I do it for people who call me. I’m not out chasing business like the eQuivalent of an ambulance chaser. David’s managed Internet operations for a couple of Congressmen with name ID in the teens. That’s hardly what I would consider a wealth of experience. When he does something… anything… that makes a difference in an actual election, come talk to me…

Second, let’s tackle the accusation that RightRoots was a “failure”. I’m not sure what Danny’s resume includes, but here’s a basic fact that may have escaped him in his climb to the middle. Challenger and open seat races are often losers. Rightroots picked 21 seats running against entrenched Democrats or for open seats. The slate went 2 for 19. That’s almost 10% for those of you keeping score.

If you’re judging anyone’s “success” as a function of winning in 2006, you’re going to be declaring a lot of people losers. How many seats did we lose last year? How many challengers got elected? How many sitting Democrats lost? Putting that at the feet of RightRoots is just stupid. Saying RightRoots was a failure because the GOP got its ass kicked up and down the ballot plays into the hands of all those who claim the Internet’s not important because it’s never made the difference. Ignoring clear success that occurs within an environment of failure misses the forest and the trees.

Now looking at RightRoots as a function of how much was raised is a whole different story. Through the help of a group of top bloggers, the site (which was a pilot project anyway) raised $300,000 in 90 days. That exceeds what ActBlue raised in its first 90 days and places RightRoots ahead of well established and well connected PACs in this town that raised and spent far less.

My point about David was he, knowing that an effort was underway and knowing we had established a name in the field, chose not to help with that, and instead chose to launch a competitor because he could put his name on it, and take credit for it. Don’t believe that? Look at his Facebook page and see who he lists as his employer.

Work Info

Employer:	Slatecard.com PAC
Position:	Executive Director
Time Period:	October 2007 – Present
Location:	Alexandria, VA
Description:	Slatecard (http://slatecard.com) is a utility to support and enhance Republican activism.

As I said in both of my posts, I believe David is self-serving, and puts himself above the cause. But, as I also said, if that’s what he feels he needs to do to get ahead, that’s his prerogative. I don’t respect it. I’ve worked for too many people in politics who got ahead (and got their candidates elected) by playing the game with integrity and a commitment to the cause.

I also feel it’s unfortunate that Danny felt the need to selectively represent my posts and completely ignored the lengthy discussion of why I feel, on the merits of his argument about Ron Paul, David All is way of the mark. I sent Danny the following note after I saw his post. I’ll let you know if I hear anything back.

I’m surprised at your post. I’m not sure if you didn’t read my posts completely, or if you just chose to selectively represent them. In my first post, I specifically stated that I had no problem with David being a rabid self-promoter. I don’t respect it, but if that’s more important to him than the cause, so be it.

I repeated that sentiment in the second post, and specifically stated that if that’s his business model, that’s fine. I then spent considerable time exploring exactly why he’s dead wrong about Paul or his supporters falling into the fold should he lose. You failed to mention that as well.

Finally, RightRoots, with no budget, and set up as a pilot project to test whether we could actually raise funds effectively on an ActBlue model, raised 300,000 in 90 days. That number greatly exceeds what ActBlue was able to do in their first 90 days (which also fell directly before the election). I’m not sure how that qualifies as “failing miserably”, but if generating more contributions than established PACs that have been raising money for years is failing, i’m not sure I understand your barometer for success.

In an apparent nod to the old adage “It’s always darkest before the dawn”, Patrick Ruffini today has a post titled, “The GOP: Dawn Breaks?” While I think his argument has some merit, and I agree with him that 2008 is more about discontent than a Democrat wave, I have concerns with our ability to capitalize on that.

If the national environment does improve somewhat, and the nominee starts close to slightly behind, we won’t have the steady demoralizing drumbeat we had in 2006. Rank-and-file Republicans will be too focused on beating up Hillary. Democrats in red districts could be cross-pressured.

No Bush to Kick Around Anymore: 2006 was the last year in which a Democrat could effectively run against Bush. It is not possible to do more political damage to Bush. People know he’s leaving.

Is this a case for 2008 as a Republican year? Not yet. But the Democrats’ best-case scenario is probably a muted change election like 2000 or 1976.

The Democrats have – without a doubt – gotten just about all the mileage out of Bush that they can get. They’re in charge now, and the public knows it. Whether the public opinion polls that show Americans with a near-record low approval for Congress are due to their unwillingness to fulfill any of what they ran on, or whether it is simply a distaste for all things political is unclear. What is apparent, though, is a sentiment that Congress, as a whole, is dysfunctional.

It used to be that you could pretty much rely on voters to believe, “My Congressman is ok, but the rest of them are crooks.” That doesn’t seem to hold anymore. I haven’t seen that question asked in some time, but I suspect more and more people would believe there guy is crooked, too.

So what does 2008 look like? I think the likelihood is an anti-incumbent wave. Not anti-GOP and not anti-Dem. I also think that holds true regardless of who the candidates at the top of the ticket are. The fact is, there just aren’t that many people left who vote a straight slate anymore.

My guess is a lot of the internal polling numbers have made that case for a fair number of GOPers who are weighing their re-election chances. I don’t believe it is a coincidence that a slew of Members who likely just benchmarked their races are saying, “Umm… Maybe not.”

Ok, so if that’s true, why aren’t Democrats doing the same thing? Why aren’t we seeing more retirements? Well, to Patrick’s point, I think they’re misreading the cards. I think they’re assuming that this is a down year for Republicans, and the retirements have them giddy with the possibility of big numbers in 2009.

I have bad news and worse news. The bad news is you have two days to live. The worse news is I was supposed to tell you yesterday.

So let’s assume Patrick and I are right, and we are actually looking at an election that we could, under normal circumstances, capitalize on. What’s the worse news?

The worse news is two-fold. First, we have a boatload of seats to protect. Going into the 2008 elections, we have to protect 2/3 of the seats up for election. The house, with a raft of retirements comes a lot of open seats. Open seats are normally harder to keep than incumbent seats, unless the incumbents are particularly disliked. Second, we have a serious problem with our base.

Trouble with your droids?

It’s no secret that the GOP base is unhappy. It’s no secret that they’re not engaging. It’s no secret that a lot of people are unhappy with our slate of candidates for President. It’s also no secret that we have a significant fundraising problem.

Does all of that add up to the Perfect Storm? Will it all conspire to steal what should, under normal circumstances, be an anti-incumbent (and therefore, favorable for the minority party) election? It may well. This is where I don’t share Patrick’s muted optimism. I think he’s right that the tealeaves are more favorable for us than a lot of people are acknowledging, but I think our hurdles are great, and I’m not sure that we’re fast or limber enough to clear them.