Oh boy: Tony Perkins calls on social cons to stop donating to the RNC

posted at 7:56 pm on March 31, 2010 by Allahpundit

In theory, this isn’t a problem — the money that would have gone to the RNC will go to the NRSC or NRCC or individual candidates — but let’s be realistic. Some people who are used to cutting checks to the parent committee aren’t going to bother looking around for other Republican groups to donate to. And some, knowing that the money’s going into the same basic pot no matter how they donate, aren’t going to bother donating to any of them.

Turns out that “Voyeur” reimbursement is the most expensive bar tab evah:

This latest incident is another indication to me that the RNC is completely tone-deaf to the values and concerns of a large number of people from whom they seek financial support.

Earlier this month the RNC made a big deal about hiring “renowned Supreme Court lawyer” Ted Olson to represent the RNC in a campaign finance case that is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, this is the same Ted Olson that is trying to overturn the results of the marriage amendment in California. The outcome of Olson’s challenge to Prop 8 goes far beyond nullifying the votes of nearly 7 million voters in California; his efforts could lead to the overturning of amendments and laws in all 45 states that currently define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

I’ve hinted at this before, but now I am saying it–don’t give money to the RNC. If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values. Better yet, become a member of FRC Action and learn about the benefits it offers, including participating in the FRC Action PAC which can support candidates who will advance faith, family and freedom!

Follow the link and check out the graphic. This is incredibly lame given the quick action taken by the RNC to can the offending staffer, but Perkins clearly was looking for an excuse to flex some muscle. He’s unhappy that social con money is being funneled by the RNC to people who aren’t, shall we say, robustly socially conservative themselves, so he’s going to try to nudge the GOP to the right on social issues by limiting his base’s dollars to only like-minded Republicans. Nothing wrong with that, but two can play at that game — and should. If you’re of a more libertarian bent, why not skip the GOP groups and give directly to like-minded candidates yourself? And if it turns out that some socially conservative candidate is in trouble in the fall and needs a cash influx, and the RNC simply doesn’t have the money — too bad, so sad. We could potentially lose winnable seats this way, but obviously Perkins isn’t worried about that. Why should you?

Maybe this is the beginning of the end for major party committees, at least as far as the base is concerned. They’re a useful tool for people who don’t have the time or inclination to research individual candidates, but for grassroots conservatives, that’s not a problem. The Internet is a wonderful thing; avail yourself of it!

Update: More Perkins heart-ache: Pete Sessions once held a fundraiser at a burlesque club or something.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Yesterday: “Screw the social conservatives”

Today: “OMG!!! We’re losing the Social conservatives!!”

Don’t mess with the Jesus.

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 8:00 PM

In the Republican Party, the smart people are down at the grassroots, and the dumb people are at the top. In the Democratic Party, it’s just the reverse.

RBMN on March 31, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Yesterday: “Screw the social conservatives”

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Some people who are used to cutting checks to the parent committee aren’t going to bother looking around for other Republican groups to donate to. And some, knowing that the money’s going into the same basic pot no matter how they donate, aren’t going to bother donating to any of them.

That is an interesting theory.

I suspect you are right, but if Perkins is speaking largely to social cons, and social cons feel it a matter of conscience to try to retain their values in the public sphere, it seems they would be the most likely group to do the research. Especially since churches and social organizations for social cons have structure.

But in practice, you are almost certainly right.

Spirit of 1776 on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Brooks/Frum & company.

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Give money directly conservative to candidates instead.

What’s the controversy?

chalons on March 31, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Good for him.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 31, 2010 at 8:02 PM

How many elections are “social conservatives” going to shoot themselves in the foot for?

Hey, I don’t want YOUR nanny state any more then I want theirs.

Boxy_Brown on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Bring it on Tony. Your side has done plenty to damage our cause and your fascistic tendencies under the guise of “family values” and “compassion” have no room in the conservative movement henceforth.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

People are going to give money to whoever they choose to give money to. I personally don’t need some nit wit news person or Hollyweirdo telling me who I should or should not support. Didn’t listen to them then and I’m not going to listen to them now.

Thankfully my monitor doesn’t have “smell=o=vision” because this particular form of despiration must be exceptionally foul.

milwife88 on March 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM

much ado about very little as the country goes off the rails.

rob verdi on March 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM

What’s the controversy?

chalons on March 31, 2010 at 8:02 PM

The controversy is that if everyone gives to, say, Marco Rubio instead of the RNC, Rubio could end up with $50 million in the bank while the RNC has nothing. What happens then when there’s some Republican candidate in a close race in October somewhere on, say, the west coast? Normally the RNC would step in and give him a million bucks. In this scenario, they can’t; you’d need Rubio to step up, but Rubio’s not going to shell out that kind of money. His incentives are different from the RNC’s.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM

I’m not a social conservative by any manner of means, but I’m riled that Steele and Co. seem to think they rate private jets and limo’s and 5-star accomodation wherever they go. It’s not to wine and dine big donors — which I would understand, even if I didn’t like it — it’s for them.

Start riding back here in coach with me and we can talk about giving you some moneys.

S. Weasel on March 31, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Your side has done plenty to damage our cause and your fascistic tendencies under the guise of “family values” and “compassion” have no room in the conservative movement henceforth.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 8:05 PM

You can’t possible expect social conservatives to give money for the RNC to pass through to an attorney who is trying to undo the one man – one woman marriage amendments across the country can you?

Sheesh, its bad enough the government is going to take our money for abortions, etc, now you want us to VOLUNTARILY give our money to an organiztion who is helping support a lawyer hell-bent on shoving gay marriange down our throats?

Wow, just wow.

Fatal on March 31, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Give money directly conservative to candidates instead.

What’s the controversy?

chalons on March 31, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Yep.

davidk on March 31, 2010 at 8:06 PM

In the Republican Party, the smart people are down at the grassroots, and the dumb people are at the top. In the Democratic Party, it’s just the reverse.

RBMN on March 31, 2010 at 8:00 PM

FTW!!

Ding Ding Ding!

+1000

kjl291 on March 31, 2010 at 8:06 PM

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 8:05 PM

Yeah, and? He’s one commenter, and he’s not flip-flopping to “oh no, we’ve lost the social conservatives!” You’re claiming that people are changing their minds overnight. Which people?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Does Meghan McCain count?

selias on March 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Hey, I don’t want YOUR nanny state any more then I want theirs.

Boxy_Brown on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Name some nanny state issues of the conservatives.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Forget the whole “social cons” argument. I agree that donations should go straight to the candidate. Why should we fund that kind of crap? I give my donations directly to the candidate I support. I think everyone should do that. What purpose does the RNC serve other than to enrich the people it hires and give money to GOP insiders?

ihasurnominashun on March 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

John McCain’s Campaign 2008- until they figured out they couldn’t lure away Hillary’s base from Obama. Hence the Palin inclusion on the ticket.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Abolish the RNC!

/

Joe Caps on March 31, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

You have implied it a few times, to name one.

Noelie on March 31, 2010 at 8:08 PM

Hey, I don’t want YOUR nanny state any more then I want theirs.

Boxy_Brown on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Exactly. Much harm has come to the party under the guise of morals and religion. I just doesn’t mix well in politics.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Maybe Perkins is supposed to just watch like a Voyeur.

Heh.

Christien on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

The controversy is that if everyone gives to, say, Marco Rubio instead of the RNC, Rubio could end up with $50 million in the bank while the RNC has nothing.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM

When you live with someone with an addiction, you remove all the trigger items and all the stuff they are addicted too. Once they get help, and solve their problem, you bring the stuff back.

Why keep giving the RNC money, if they don’t represent your views or even your morals any longer?

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM

But on the other hand they (RNC)could also throw their support behind someone that most “conservatives” do not support due to their RINO tendencies. For instance Dede Scozzafava. From what I remember, that one didn’t turn out so well. It’s a double edged sword.

milwife88 on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

The controversy is that if everyone gives to, say, Marco Rubio instead of the RNC, Rubio could end up with $50 million in the bank while the RNC has nothing. What happens then when there’s some Republican candidate in a close race in October somewhere on, say, the west coast?

How about PAC’s?

Here’s the practical application it seems to me in your scenario:

The RNC will still have donors, the normal big donors, and that money can go to Cali when Rubio is taken care of by the little donor. Less money, but less places it has to be spent.

Spirit of 1776 on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Who cares about the RNC? Support conservatives.

There’s a reason “conservative” is a more popular label than “Republican”. The party leadership are a bunch of elitist toolbags for the most part.

therightwinger on March 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM

“Turns out that “Voyeur” reimbursement is the most expensive bar tab evah:”

I believe the tab started to run up when the RNC ordered a Ssssscoooooozzzzzzaaaaafffffaaaavvvvvvaaaaaa on the rocks…

… After that, we all went dutch, selecting to bypass the fat cats in Washington, contributing directly to individual candidates, and the RNC was left holding their own tab.

Seven Percent Solution on March 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Social conservatives on the whole seems to be a lot more forgiving that libertarians…

Maybe if libertarians hadn’t been called them fascists for the past decade and telling them to leave the party…

tetriskid on March 31, 2010 at 8:10 PM

The GOP’s problem is that it has no infrastructure. The dems for decades have built up pro democratic party groups like the NAACP, Unions, ACORN, Seirra Club, and the list goes on and on.

These groups keep the Dems in power. The GOP has no voter based organization outside of the RNC itself that pushes people to the polls.

The GOP spends money on Mass Media marketing and not on GOTV efforts. You need footsoldiers to win wars even if airpower can give you some victories.

The RNC still is clueless on party building when it thinks that luring younger voters in by leading them to sex themed clubs is the way to go.

Its a failure of leadership not the GOP. Steele has and still is clueless on how to make the party better.

William Amos on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Allahpundit:Is this it?:)
======================================
“Screw the Social Conservatives”

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Thursday, December 4th at 9:57AM EST

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2008/12/04/screw-the-social-conservatives/

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM

I’m against these moronic expense reports, but is anyone doing this sort of scrutiny on the dems? Do they have some, shall we say interesting expenses?

WitchDoctor on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM

AP, you called “incredibly lame” for doing exactly what you went on to do: give suggestions for how to donate in line with your beliefs. Hy Po Crite.

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Can Does Meghan McCain count?

selias on March 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM

FIFY.

Pointing out silly spoiled morons with no redeeeming value to society is really irrelevent. Meghan’s peers have served in combat zones, are building their lives, and otherwise contributing to society. Meghan- not so much. She is a vapid pretender. In other words, she is the spitting image of her daddy.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Less money, but less places it has to be spent.

Spirit of 1776 on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Not sure about that. I think if people start donating to individual candidates, you’ll see a handful of grassroots darlings — Rubio, DeMint, etc — shoot way up in terms of fundraising, but other lesser-known pols will starve. The grassroots won’t spread it around the way the RNC will.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

How many elections are “social conservatives” going to shoot themselves in the foot for?

Boxy_Brown on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Thing is, it’s not enough that they shoot themselves in the foot, they then go and shoot our feet too. Reasonable people – religious or not – are sick of the fundie loons undermining one election after another.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Yeah, and? He’s one commenter, and he’s not flip-flopping to “oh no, we’ve lost the social conservatives!” You’re claiming that people are changing their minds overnight. Which people?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM

Please Allah, don’t play coy. That comment represents alot of people in the Republican party. A majority? Obviously not, as the RNC still tries to pander to the Social Cons. In fact, you love to post polls showing the decline in morality voters in the party.

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Thread WINNAH!

Christien on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM

It seems that the internet does a fairly good job of getting word out when decent candidates need money.

I’m on a whole host of congressional candidate mailing lists now because I donated money to them. I discovered them through blogs and news stories and mentions from friends that live in the area.

It will suck if the RNC won’t be able to drop money into a race because people aren’t donating. However, it’s worse if the RNC can’t drop money into a race because they spent it all on private jets and parties.

JadeNYU on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

but let’s be realistic. Some people who are used to cutting checks to the parent committee aren’t going to bother looking around for other Republican groups to donate to. And some, knowing that the money’s going into the same basic pot no matter how they donate, aren’t going to bother donating to any of them.

Well then, you don’t know Social Conservatives. As Spirit of 1776, generally speaking (because there always exceptions to the rule) this group is one that will do the research and send money to candidates that reflect their values. It is their money after all, they are free to support the candidate of their choosing. Giving money to the RNC is akin to the federal government and the Stimulus Bill (figuratively and literally): it’s a waste.

We could potentially lose winnable seats this way,

Got any names? specifics? Why should anyone give to the RNC given their record on “fiscal constraint”? How are they any different than the DNC or federal government? SoCons aren’t the only group giving money. If some candidate on the West coast needs cash, there are plenty of moderate GOPs and Libertarians who can give money. The RNC does have money. Perhaps they should stop their taking their junkets to Hawaii and other extravagant expenditures. Again, it’s the individual’s money and they can choose to listen to Perkins or not. Personally, if I give money it’s going straight to the candidate.

conservative pilgrim on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Do you read what you write before you post it?

Any civilized society is built on morals and/or religion. Without those there would be no laws to protect individual rights.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:13 PM

This whole thing is a clusterf*ck.

What the hell is wrong at the RNC?

I’d say that the soc-cons are shooting themselves in the foot if they pull this, but can you really blame them? The RNC is full of clowns: stupid clowns who should know better. In a climate where a sock-puppet with a red R on it could win election to Congress, the RNC is doing its damnedest to screw the pooch.

Lehosh on March 31, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Seems to me we would not even be talking about this if the RNC could keep itself in check.

EnochCain on March 31, 2010 at 8:14 PM

The grassroots won’t spread it around the way the RNC will.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” -Allahpundit

Sorry I couldn’t help myself.

Joe Caps on March 31, 2010 at 8:14 PM

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM
—————
Thread WINNAH!

Christien on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Christien: I cheated,I googled!!:)

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM

MORE COW BELL!!!!

rickyricardo on March 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM

This is incredibly lame given the quick action taken by the RNC to can the offending staffer,

AP, your analysis is “incredibly lame” because Perkins is calling for this action because of a series of such incidents, as well as the libertarian bent the RNC is taking nowadays, as you went on to describe.
You just can’t resist bashing a Christian in the spotlight.
Perkins is a national treasure.

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 8:16 PM

You’re claiming that people are changing their minds overnight. Which people?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM

This “people” right here.

Knucklehead on March 31, 2010 at 8:16 PM

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM

Captain Obvious Police.

Sarcasm.

selias on March 31, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Do you read what you write before you post it?

Any civilized society is built on morals and/or religion. Without those there would be no laws to protect individual rights.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:13 PM

Sheeth your claws please.

The issue is whose morals and religion? Think carefully about that- we are a republic, not a theocracy. Certainly law is based on ethics and certain universal moral principles, but you cannot expect us to all share the same ethical frameworks, morality or religion.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Does anyone here trust the RNC to dole out your money in support for candidates who share your core beliefs? Can you be assured that the “powers that be” will not throw your money behind a candidate like Dede who promises “conservative” leadership but is a DemLite? Look, IMHO I know best where to spend my money.

Also Allah, I would like to add that several times on this blog many people have donated to candidates in states other than their own to help that person raise the money that is needed to win elections. Scott Brown comes to mind. Don’t worry, WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN!

milwife88 on March 31, 2010 at 8:17 PM

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:11 PM
—————
Thread WINNAH!

Christien on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Christien: I cheated,I googled!!:)

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM
canopfor, you were not cheating. You have a great memory, and you are a fast thinker!!! Thanks for staying on your toes.

mobydutch on March 31, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Again, they’re pimping the ‘update’ story like it was another lesbian club. It’s NOT!!!!!!! People, these are regular dance clubs. PACKED to the hilt with people. You couldn’t get horizontal with anything because there’s no space!

Apologetic California on March 31, 2010 at 8:17 PM

portlandon on March 31, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Bingo!

I see the opposite side where giving to the RNC instead of individual candidates like Rubio lets them decide where the money goes for best effect (why waste money on a losing candidate with appeal when it could be better spent on a marginal candidate with possibilities). But the RNC has been part of the problem. They were the ones supporting Scuzzofava despite the fact that she was far more liberal than the Dem!

I’ll also point out that the RNC was the entity that engineered McCain’s victory over a social conservative who might have energized the base and kept Obama or Clinton out of office. Personally, I think giving locally and bypassing the RNC is the way to go until they’ve proven they are good stewards of donations after almost a decade of wasting money on their own agenda.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:17 PM

If you’re of a more libertarian bent, why not skip the GOP groups and give directly to like-minded candidates yourself? And if it turns out that some socially conservative candidate is in trouble in the fall and needs a cash influx, and the RNC simply doesn’t have the money — too bad, so sad.

Advice I’m going to take completely.

Guys like Perkins are why I’m independent instead of committing to the GOP. The social cons just tire me. They went to a strip / bondage club. To quote our esteemed VP, “BFD.”

Vyce on March 31, 2010 at 8:18 PM

In the Republican Party, the smart people are down at the grassroots, and the dumb people are at the top. In the Democratic Party, it’s just the reverse.

RBMN on March 31, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I think you’re mistaken – given the people currently at the top of the DNC, I think you can say there aren’t any smart ones over there anywhere.

Midas on March 31, 2010 at 8:18 PM

If this was a one time error it, the club in question wouldn’t bother me. Why do the Republicans have a winter place in Hawaii? Why do they have a place other then the building needed to do their jobs? It’s just more elitist garbage with the taxpayer struggling and these guys acting like they don’t have a care in the world or have a clue about economizing. Who wants to put them back in charge of the budget?

Cindy Munford on March 31, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Tony Perkins wants money for his Family Research Council.
Period.
And there are dozens of other “Conservative family values” lobbying groups in D.C. just like his including Newt’s.

They think the RNC’s loss is their gain.
Maybe, maybe not.

Jenfidel on March 31, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Yep. They should just shut the hell up and keep sending their money in regardless of whether or not they believe it is being spent correctly.

Their money. They earned it. If they choose to spend it elsewhere, I do not have a problem with it.

JadeNYU on March 31, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Bring it on Tony. Your side has done plenty to damage our cause and your fascistic tendencies under the guise of “family values” and “compassion” have no room in the conservative movement henceforth.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Sounds like another libertarian doper. There’s nothing fascistic about conservative family values, dude.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:20 PM

canopfor on March 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM

Sorry, bro, but the Internets already in the mail.

Christien on March 31, 2010 at 8:20 PM

I am personally socially conservative, but from a government perspective am libertarian – and I really think social conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot here.

It’s like the tea/third party proponents who adamantly insist on cutting off their nose to spite their face; “I’m gonna do this even if it means the Democrats win again – which is the worst possible thing from my perspective – but damnit, I’m simply going to do it anyway.”

Ugh, spare us.

Midas on March 31, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Not sure about that. I think if people start donating to individual candidates, you’ll see a handful of grassroots darlings — Rubio, DeMint, etc — shoot way up in terms of fundraising, but other lesser-known pols will starve. The grassroots won’t spread it around the way the RNC will.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

The Tea Party is one way to alleviate these fundraising issues. Also, a lesser known candidate has many resources and avenues to get his/her message out and generate enthusiasm for support and contributions in the Internet age. Ed does great work on his TEMS show and features candidates and politicians. There was an informative interview today with Dr. Dan, the guy challenging Stupak. The Internet has changed everything. The Tea Party groups emphasize politics locally now. Our local chapter is having a meeting tomorrow evening to introduce politicians who will challenge Glenn Nye’s seat (VA-02). I don’t see money being an issue for candidates because of what Perkins is saying.

conservative pilgrim on March 31, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Here’s why you should donate directly to the candidates of your choice:

RNC: Steele and company spend money on themselves or just waste it

NRSC: Still supporting Crist, donated $42k to Bob Bennett (Utah) for use against conservative challengers in the primary? Why should party money, which comes from donations be used in primaries?

NRCC: Pulled funding from Michele Bachmann in 2008 because she was too outspoken; in 2009 the NRCC contributed $900k to Dede in NY-23

bw222 on March 31, 2010 at 8:21 PM

The controversy is that if everyone gives to, say, Marco Rubio instead of the RNC, Rubio could end up with $50 million in the bank while the RNC has nothing. What happens then when there’s some Republican candidate in a close race in October somewhere on, say, the west coast? Normally the RNC would step in and give him a million bucks. In this scenario, they can’t; you’d need Rubio to step up, but Rubio’s not going to shell out that kind of money. His incentives are different from the RNC’s.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Wait a sec… Rubio is working together with DeMint on getting conservative Senators into the Senate. What’s to say that he wouldn’t give money to a conservative running for election on the west coast or anywhere? What about support? I’d trust Rubio and DeMint to help get a conservative elected more than the RNC… now getting an arbitrary Republican, IDK…

MeatHeadinCA on March 31, 2010 at 8:21 PM

The grassroots won’t spread it around the way the RNC will.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Let these guys spread the wealth around:
http://www.frcactionpac.org/

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Because you give a crap whether social cons are breathing or not. Oh, that’s right, they pay your bills.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Their money. They earned it. If they choose to spend it elsewhere, I do not have a problem with it.

JadeNYU on March 31, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Nor do I – but I will repeatedly point out that somewhere down that path, at some point, lies a Democrat victory.

Right now, every inch that is taken in the name of ‘division of our side’ is an inch closer to re-election victory for ‘their side’.

A little or a few inches, perhaps fine. Enough inches and we lose, and then what did all of that “I’m not giving you my money, nyah nyah nyah” get them in the end?

A worse situation for all of us than we’re currently in, that’s where.

Midas on March 31, 2010 at 8:23 PM

All you have to do is look at cornyn…sponsoring spector till he switched, scuzzyflava till her polls hit single digits, failing to sponsor Brown, continuing to sponsor crist cause its the honorable thing.
All the DC GOP needs to go.
PS I send money direct to the candidate of my choice…ie to JD just to get rid of the cranj=ky, out of touch SOB.

SERFER62 on March 31, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Yeah? Who said “screw the social conservatives”?

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Does wishing they weren’t relevant to the current political discourse count?

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:24 PM

I don’t get why not donating and potentially helping Democrats win is the more palatable choice here. Look, they took care of this guy and this particular charge…let it go. This is the same type of crap that made a lot of people stay home in ’06 and ’08, and look where we are now. I think Steele needs to go and the RNC certainly needs to pinch their pennies better, but I think some are missing the forest for the trees. We’ve got a chance here to win a lot of seats, but it looks like we’ll be shooting ourselves in the foot again.

changer1701 on March 31, 2010 at 8:25 PM

I don’t get why not donating and potentially helping Democrats win is the more palatable choice here. Look, they took care of this guy and this particular charge…let it go. This is the same type of crap that made a lot of people stay home in ‘06 and ‘08, and look where we are now. I think Steele needs to go and the RNC certainly needs to pinch their pennies better, but I think some are missing the forest for the trees. We’ve got a chance here to win a lot of seats, but it looks like we’ll be shooting ourselves in the foot again.

changer1701 on March 31, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Well said. +100

Midas on March 31, 2010 at 8:26 PM

This “people” right here.

Knucklehead on March 31, 2010 at 8:16 PM

That’s right Knuckles! While you and me and many other nobodies are trying to figure out the nat’l candidates (at all levels), we can be sure the RNC will be pushing conservatives! /s

MeatHeadinCA on March 31, 2010 at 8:26 PM

The RNC is a stupid organization.

THEY FUNDED SCOZZAFAVA EVEN AFTER DONORS REPEATEDLY ASKED THEM NOT TO & DEMANDED THEIR MONEY BACK!

——————————-

PAC’s can fund candidates in a much more efficient manner.

Find conservative candidates & PACS and then donate.

tetriskid on March 31, 2010 at 8:26 PM

How many elections are “social conservatives” going to shoot themselves in the foot for?

Boxy_Brown on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM
Thing is, it’s not enough that they shoot themselves in the foot, they then go and shoot our feet too. Reasonable people – religious or not – are sick of the fundie loons undermining one election after another.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Both typical responses to those who care to bend morality to their own descriptions.

Rovin on March 31, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Um, shouldn’t more than just social cons be worried that the RNC is spending money at a strip club?

terryannonline on March 31, 2010 at 8:28 PM

I don’t get why not donating and potentially helping Democrats win is the more palatable choice here. Look, they took care of this guy and this particular charge…let it go.

changer1701 on March 31, 2010 at 8:25 PM

It’s one in a series of foolish incidents, plus the GOP is becoming the Libertarian Party sans dope-smoking.
It is better for so-cons to donate to so-con candidates or PACs.

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 8:28 PM

In the Republican Party, the smart people are down at the grassroots, and the dumb people are at the top. In the Democratic Party, it’s just the reverse.

RBMN on March 31, 2010 at 8:00 PM

So true so true… How many of you are ready to place a wager that the current bunch of Republican ‘leaders’ would have signed on to Obamacare had it not been for the base/tea partiers.
I agree with Allahpundit that the solution is not to defund the RNC especially within this election cycle. But I do wish there was a way to have the RINO leadership resign or be forced to resign. As conservatives, we are now fighting a two-pronged war. The first is against Democrats, to whittle them down to a minority that can do no more damage, and the second is against squishy RINOS that are neither fiscal cons nor social cons nor any form of conservative.
Couple this story with Sen Bob Corker doing his utmost best to demoralize the base by saying Obamacare cannot be repealed and they wonder why the base is getting angrier each day.

TheRightMan on March 31, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Certainly law is based on ethics and certain universal moral principles, but you cannot expect us to all share the same ethical frameworks, morality or religion.

theenforser on March 31, 2010 at 8:17 PM

This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and morals. The Ten Commandments are the basis for our laws. I know we don’t agree on the particulars when it comes to ethics and morals but that it is because too many people do not want to abide by or be constrained a set of standards, like the libertarians. We can, should and must expect everyone to share the same framework otherwise there is nothing but anarchy.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:28 PM

Maybe we should start our own union, then our donations will be automatically taken out regardless of who we endorse in this Representative Republic…

… seems to work for the DNC.

Seven Percent Solution on March 31, 2010 at 8:29 PM

The grassroots won’t spread it around the way the RNC will.

Allahpundit on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

You say that as if it is a bad thing. They have been bad stewards of contributions and DO NOT DESERVE to be involved in choosing which candidates to support. They gave money to Scuzzofava in NY-23. They engineered a left-of-the-grassroots candidate would win in 2008 (supposed to be Rudy turned out to be McCain).

In short the RNC has not represented the grassroots interests in their spending choices. They only have themselves to blame if they see folks spending on “media darlings” instead of some grand strategy that elects people like Scuzzpfava to office. They have been as deaf as Congress when it comes to understanding what is happening in America outside of liberal enclaves like NYC and San Francisco. Are you deaf too Allah?

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:29 PM

Both typical responses to those who care to bend morality to their own descriptions.

Rovin on March 31, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Always makes me laugh when moderates demand that social cons not force their opinions on them by accepting moderate beliefs as “Better”

Pot meet Kettle.

William Amos on March 31, 2010 at 8:29 PM

I love a good uptight scolding by a moral relativist.

darclon on March 31, 2010 at 8:29 PM

I don’t get why not donating and potentially helping Democrats win is the more palatable choice here.

changer1701 on March 31, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot your wife. I don’t want to do either but I will choose the lesser of two evils.

Just stop telling me that I’m a crappy human being for not wanting to give up my wallet.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Reasonable people – religious or not – are sick of the fundie loons undermining one election after another.

Dark-Star on March 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM

Tony Perkins’ analysis = reasonable
Dark-Star’s analysis = loon-ish

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Oh, and stop telling me that you’re some kind of righteous person for wanting to take my wallet.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Maybe we should start our own union, then our donations will be automatically taken out regardless of who we endorse in this Representative Republic…

… seems to work for the DNC.

Seven Percent Solution on March 31, 2010 at 8:29 PM

And thanks to Obamacare the lobotamies are free!

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Nobody cares that he spent his money at a strip club.

He shouldn’t be wasting any money that could be going to candidates. BUT THEY ARE. AND THEY AREN’T GONNA STOP.

tetriskid on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Bring it on Tony. Your side has done plenty to damage our cause and your fascistic tendencies under the guise of “family values” and “compassion” have no room in the conservative movement henceforth.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:03 PM

The second you mentioned “fascist” you lost any vapor of credibility.
Tony is a conservative, that means he’s fiscally, military and SOCIALLY conservative. Without one of those tridents, the person isn’t a conservative.

Just because someone claims to be fiscally conservative and is liberal on social issues is NOT a conservative.

Who’s side are you on?

b1jetmech on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot your wife. I don’t want to do either but I will choose the lesser of two evils.

spmat on March 31, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Or in the words Jack Benny…… I’m thinking.

highhopes on March 31, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Tony Perkins’ analysis = reasonable
Dark-Star’s analysis = loon-ish

itsnotaboutme on March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Oh, now you’ve done it… he’ll go and call your uncle a redneck or claim you like going to biker bars!

MeatHeadinCA on March 31, 2010 at 8:33 PM

The problem with Micheal Steele is he readily buys into the whole Identity politics theme.

His WHOLE focus has been to get more minorities and younger people into the party. Not by creating a better conservative message but by trying to market it like it was a new version of a old product.

Your basic crappy marketing think.

William Amos on March 31, 2010 at 8:34 PM

Sounds like another libertarian doper. There’s nothing fascistic about conservative family values, dude.

Sporty1946 on March 31, 2010 at 8:20 PM

I have zero problem with religion as an institution or religious people. My father is the best person I’ve ever known and I have no doubt its his Catholicism that has led him on his good and pious path.

What I do have a problem with however is the religious wanting their faith expressed through government. I want my politicians to oppose abortion because its wrong to kill, not because God or their pastor or whoever decreed it so. There must be a logically coherent argument for any form of public policy as said policy affects citizens of all creeds. This is why I cannot oppose gay marriage because even though I may be weirded out personally by homosexual behavior there is no logically coherent argument against disallowing gays from marrying in the civic sense. Our consciences must be aligned with reason; not some gut feeling that we ascribe to any number of metaphysical entities.

sluhser589 on March 31, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Nobody cares that he spent his money at a strip club.

Enough about the Sozzifava campaign already…

William Amos on March 31, 2010 at 8:36 PM

drip
DRIP
DRIP

NextGen on March 31, 2010 at 8:36 PM

That news about Ted Olsen is truly awful. As he, apparently, also is.

Scozzafava, McCain, Graham, now even Cheney…I bought Rove’s book (and am reading it) but even Karl Rove, I have taken a strong step away from after discovering his close relationship with the likes of Grover Norquist.

I decided, after McCain’s nomination, to donate to candidates and not party. When the RNC gets the message that many of us voters don’t want Democrat Part Alt. from the RNC, I’ll rethink my current strategy.

That Ted Olsen information, it’s truly wretched.

Lourdes on March 31, 2010 at 8:36 PM

Ugh…. here’s a great idea… the house is ON FIRE, so why don’t we start some infighting rather than getting a hose?

I’d rather take my chances with a candidate that meets the 85% rule than stand aside and allow a single Democrat to get by without the fight of his life. We need to utilize EVERY tool at our disposal.

Murf76 on March 31, 2010 at 8:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4