05/30/07
Bob Schaffer and the Club for Growth
In response to my posting a week ago endorsing Bob Schaffer for Senate, I received an interesting comment which I thought deserved a serious reply regarding the actions of the Club for Growth in Colorado during the prior election cycle and the possible ramifications of that in 2008.
Here is the comment I received:
All the best to Schaffer. He will make a great Senator. If Schaffer is endorsed by the Club for Growth, how much do you think that will cost him after what the Club did in the 5th CD in 2006? The old bull and cow elephants in the 5th CD are poised to dump Lamborn and they are holding everything against the CFG and Pat Toomey in the process. The blow-back on Schaffer will be serious if he campaigns with the CFG's endorsement.
And here is my response:
Jane,
As you know, I was highly critical of the Club for Growth for endorsing Doug Lamborn. It was by far the biggest mistake the Club ever made and I can't say I fully understand the politics behind their decision, because I do believe it was at least as political as principled.
I have been involved with CFG almost since its founding, however, and despite this glaring and close-to-home error, they generally do very good and very important work. I believe that most voters, even in the 5th CD, will be able to separate the issues.
Furthermore, the issue with Lamborn was a primary versus another (better) Republican in Jeff Crank, as well as some others who were not so good. I would be quite surprised if Bob Schaffer had a primary challenger. Therefore, Club members who receive Club recommendations are not going to be looking at a Lamborn vs. Crank type of situation but rather a solid intellectual conservative (Schaffer) versus a liberal, not especially intellectual environmentalist (Mark Udall). The choice will be very clear, and there's just no way any significant number of Republicans or Independents will vote for Udall just because the Club endorsed Schaffer, no matter how angry they are with the Club for what it did in the 5th in the last election.
So, I understand that people are angry with the CFG, but I just don't see "serious blowback" against Schaffer because of it. Schaffer is too good a person and too good a candidate for Republicans in the 5th to hold the Club's endorsement against him. Beyond that, keep in mind that the Senate race is not just run in the 5th, and people outside the 5th (other than a few people like me) aren't even aware of the controversy surrounding the CFG in that election. The Club's endorsement would be a huge net positive for Bob Schaffer, not only in Colorado but to encourage out-of-state donors as well. You can be certain that the liberal 527s will be working very hard to raise out-of-state money for Udall, and the Club is the only serious competition for them.
You are probably aware how strongly I supported Jeff Crank over Doug Lamborn. To me, Crank was obviously not only the better candidate, but the better man. I am still convinced that is the case. As an active participant in the Colorado Club for Growth, I (and not just I) had some very angry conversations with the highest level of management at the national Club. But it would just be silly to hold the CFG's decision against Bob Schaffer.
I know Bob Schaffer, and I can not think of one single candidate for anything in the upcoming elections who is his equal in intellect, honesty, experience, and just being a decent guy. I couldn't care less if Pat Toomey made a mistake in a prior election as long as he does the right thing in this one. After all, this election is MUCH more important than a Republican primary (between two guys with similar positions on issues) in a strongly Republican district in the House.
With Schaffer, we're talking about probably the highest visibility and most competitive race for an open Senate seat and that's a Senate that is one vote from switching control. No matter how angry you were with Pat Toomey, if you're a Republican, or an independent voter who sees the obvious superiority of Bob Schaffer over Mark Udall (and I believe it will be very obvious to all who are not simply party-line voters once they debate each other), it simply doesn't make sense to vote for the wrong guy because you're upset with another group who endorsed the right guy.
It is very difficult to toss an incumbent, and given what a brutal campaign I expect Schaffer's to be, I would encourage Jeff Crank not to run again right now and 5th CD Republicans to focus on beating Udall rather than beating a guy who, while maybe neither the brightest bulb nor the hardest worker, is basically fine on the issues (at least as far as most 5th CD Republicans go, as he is too socially conservative for me and too emphatic that those are his most important issues.)
My view could theoretically reverse, i.e. to thinking that Jeff should run, if I come to believe that Lamborn will receive a primary challenge anyway, that he is truly vulnerable to the challenge, and that if Lamborn is the GOP candidate on the ticket, it might hurt GOP turnout and thus hurt Bob Schaffer. But, I think that combination of events is unlikely. First, I would suggest that the GOP establishment as well as other organizations that might support Jeff or be neutral if it were an open seat will line up behind Lamborn. So he is probably not as vulnerable as many (maybe including me) would wish. Second, if Jeff does challenge, and forces the GOP leadership to spend money and energy defending a conservative Republican incumbent from another conservative Republican, then if Jeff loses (and maybe even if he wins) he will probably not be able to get support from Washington for another campaign for a decade or more. In other words, if Jeff challenges and loses, it would be a major long-term setback for his political career. If he challenges and wins, he won't be particularly appreciated by Republicans outside his voter base in the 5th CD. And third, since this year will include a presidential race that will have the electorate highly energized, it isn't likely that the presence of any particular GOP Congressional candidate will cause an important difference in turnout. If Lamborn were to lose, then his voters would be disheartened just as Crank's were last time, so it's not obvious that there's an important overall gain for the GOP or difference in turnout which might come from a successful primary challenge to Lamborn, and I don't think a challenge is likely to succeed.
In summary, I think it would be a mistake for 5th CD voters to hold a CFG endorsement of Bob Schaffer against him, and I don't think more than a small handful would make that mistake in this situation. And second, I think it may be a bad use of the time, energy, and money of motivated GOP activists to try to toss Lamborn even though I'd be perfectly happy to see him lose to Jeff Crank. Instead that energy should be focused on supporting Bob Schaffer in a far more difficult and far more important race, not just for Colorado but for the nation.
-------------
Last week, the Club for Growth put out this press release:
For immediate release—March 22, 2007
Club for Growth PAC Pleased with Potential Bob Schaffer Candidacy in Colorado
Washington - The Club for Growth PAC is pleased to hear that former Representative Bob Schaffer is considering entering the race to succeed retiring Republican Colorado Senator Wayne Allard.
During his three terms in Congress from 1997-2002, Bob Schaffer was a dedicated defender of taxpayers and a strong proponent of lower taxes, limited government, and greater freedom. He even earned the nickname “Honest Bob” for fulfilling his campaign pledge not to serve more than three terms as a U.S. Representative.
The National Taxpayers Union awarded Rep. Schaffer five grades of A for 1997-2001 and a grade of B+ for his final year, ranking him number 31 out of the House of Representatives’ 435 members in 2002. The NTU scorecard is based on every vote that “significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers.” In the same vein, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste gave Rep. Schaffer a lifetime rating of 85 for his six years in Congress, making him a “Taxpayer Hero.”
“I served with Bob Schaffer in the House of Representatives,” Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said, “and I speak from personal experience when I say that Bob Schaffer would be a fantastic addition to the U.S. Senate. In the House of Representatives, he was a committed supporter of free-market principles, and I have no doubt that his support would continue as strongly in the U.S. Senate.”
PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
3 comments
and based on that and other facts, it is inevitable that Doug Lamborn will be challenged in the 5th CD. Personally, I hope Jeff Crank runs. If he doesn't, then Bentley Rayburn.
Lamborn challenged the incumbent Republican for a State senate seat in the 1990s, as I've read from an e-mail making the rounds. As for the Club for Growth, many of us hold Pat Toomey directly responsible for the loss of the U.S. Senate. Toomey was quite proud of what the Club did to Chafee in Rhode Island. He is dangerous as is the Club for Growth. I am one such Republican who will not tolerate any association with Schaffer while the Club for Growth simultaneously backs Lamborn--if it does again. The only way Schaffer can overcome the blight of association with the Club for Growth is if Toomey dumps Lamborn in 2008. If Toomey supports them both, they will both lose.
on 05/31/07 at 21:28
My own opinion is that Toomey is battling Specter for the worst republican of all time award. He is despicable, dishonest, and operates like a conservative version of the Clintons. Toomey is largely responsible for the disillusionment with politics today and should be shunned by any self respecting republican. His disgusting actions were not confined to Colorado's 5th. This jerk led the way in 06 being the first year that republicans spent more money defeating other republicans than in general elections defeating democrats.
Way to go Toomey, now go jump off a cliff!
I understand your dislike for Pat Toomey's behavior in the last election, especially in the 5th CD.
Let me give you my view on that: I thought the Club made a serious error by getting involved with Doug Lamborn, and I have let them know that many times. I don't know how seriously they take me, but I can tell you that top management there has spent enough time on the phone with me that I think they are listening, even though they may not be convinced.
However, both you and a prior commenter seem very angry about the Club's support for a challenge to Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island.
I fully understand that that challenge could have been the difference between the Republicans keeping control of the Senate or losing it as they did. But I nevertheless support what the Club did there. The Republicans in both houses of Congress (though particularly in the House) had become complacent and corrupt. They had abandoned any pretense of fiscal responsibility, adding on pork and unconstitutional expansions of government on a scale that would have made FDR smile.
In the long run, the Democrats are incapable of good government. So our only choice is the GOP, but not if they start acting like Democrats. If it takes beating some Republicans to get them GOP to realize the errors of their ways, so be it. I will not sacrifice our nation and my liberty simply to support a particular political party.
The Club's actions are usually very helpful, such as beating Joe Schwarz in Michigan. There is nothing inherently wrong with Republicans spending money to beat Republicans. We should care about good government, protecting and defending the Constitution, and the value of principle over the ability to steak an extra $10,000,000 from taxpayers to fund some boondoggle in a district. If that means Republicans going after RINO's who simply call themselves Republicans, I'm all for it.
Now, on to Bob Schaffer's campaign: The idea that you would work for and contribute to Schaffer if he runs, but not if he accepts a CFG endorsement is childish and ill-advised, even if I understand that gut reaction from a resident of the 5th CD.
Schaffer is the best candidate for anything which this state has had in years (actually I'd put Mark Hillman in that category too). The idea that you would even passively do something that would help get Mark Udall elected is far worse than anything the Club for Growth has done. They were wrong in the Lamborn race, but they act from principle where you would be acting from spite, and in a way that would cause great harm to Colorado and the nation is others follow your example.
It is NOT Bob Schaffer's job to "apologize for (the Club's) actions last election." If the Club wants to send any such message, they'll do it by simply not supporting Lamborn in a primary challenge.
Furthermore, the chance of Schaffer refusing to "accept" an endorsement from the Club for Growth is somewhere between 0% and -0%. Nor should he. The Club has huge national membership. It's not just in Colorado or the 5th CD, and Schaffer can expect substantial financial support from out of state...just as I have contributed to more than a dozen Congressional campaigns outside my state.
Schaffer's accomplishments and intellect and policy positions more than justify the strongest possible support from every Republican, and from every Independent who cares about smart and principled leadership.
If you are willing to have Mark Udall as your Senator for the next 18 years (because it will be very difficult to unseat whoever wins this seat before he actually wants to retire), then stick with your expressed position. But if what is important to you is having a conservative, principled, experienced, intelligent Senator, then put aside your distaste for Pat Toomey and do everything you can to support Bob Schaffer. The country needs Schaffer in office. Dislike for Pat Toomey doesn't change that fact one bit.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
