Political Malpractice in GOP Primaries: Kimberley Strassel
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579536292345921748?mg=reno64-wsj
Poorly vetted outsiders have done a disservice to the grass-roots tea party movement.
Republican primary season is in full swing, and lucky for many prominent conservative groups, politics doesn’t track batting averages. They’d be hard pressed to hit the Mendoza Line.
The Senate Conservatives Fund, FreedomWorks, the Madison Project, the Club for Growth and some tea party groups roared into this primary season determined to claim more GOP scalps. The roar has faded to a whimper. In every race involving a Senate Republican incumbent, the outsider candidate is lagging—if not holding a 20-point deficit.
The challengers aren’t bombing because of a lack of money or the “establishment,” but mainly because of some mind-boggling embarrassments. Dr. Milton Wolf, challenging Pat Roberts in Kansas, was discovered to have a penchant for posting gruesome X-ray images of dead people on Facebook. FB +2.29% (Whoops.) Kentucky’s Matt Bevin, challenging Mitch McConnell, has been forced to explain his changed positions on the 2008 government bank bailout, and more recently his presence at a cockfighting rally. (Uh-oh.)
Chris McDaniel, a lawyer and state legislator challenging Mississippi’s Thad Cochran, spent April dealing with past comments as a radio host, including derogatory references to Mexico and “Mamacita.” He’s also fielding awkward questions about his past plaintiffs’ work, including his request that a judge blow up Mississippi’s tort reform. (Ummm.)
These episodes have turned off the very people these outside groups claim to represent: the grass roots. Many Republican voters—even those desperate for a party shake-up—simply aren’t comfortable supporting a doctor who publicly mocks gunshot victims. They expect (and deserve) something more serious. That’s to their credit, and it’s tempting to therefore write off all this as proof the system works. Bad candidates lose. No harm done.
Only that ignores the harm done. Consider the waste, at a time when the conservative movement can ill afford to squander resources. There is no disgrace in backing a sound and serious candidate who can’t quite carry it over the finish line. That’s honest primary competition. By contrast, it is political malpractice to throw tens of thousands of donors’ dollars at a candidate whose Facebook posts or past radio shows no one bothered to check. It’s called V-E-T-T-I-N-G.
The best insurgent candidates are those who demonstrate an ability to raise money and attract voters (think Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Deb Fischer ) even before the endorsements of outside groups. One of the Club for Growth’s best Senate prospects this year is Arkansas’s Tom Cotton (challenging Sen. Mark Pryor ), who has spent two years in the House. By contrast, most of the current incumbent-challengers were “created” by outside groups. They’d ordinarily never have had a showing—and for good reason.
There’s also the damage to the movement. The press is churning out stories about how the tea party is fading fast. That’s terrifically unfair to the grass-roots, which hasn’t been given candidates worth rallying around. Primaries matter and conservatives have legitimate grievances with some incumbents. They’ve been cheated this time, because too many of the D.C. insiders running these groups have been more interested in settling grudges against Mr. McConnell than in doing their homework.
One casualty may be policy votes in Congress. Many national Republicans have been voting better in recent years partly for fear of a primary. Should they bother any more, seeing the caliber of likely opponents?
There’s also damage to Republican hopes of retaking the Senate. While most of these outsiders will lose, they’ve bloodied incumbents. And if they win? One of the closest races is Mississippi, where Mr. McDaniel (despite his press problems) continues to dog Sen. Cochran—who has years of overspending to answer for. Note that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee hasn’t said boo about the McDaniel radio comments. Why? He’ll be easier to beat than the incumbent, and Democrats would have plenty by way of the race card (“Mamacita”) to play in a general election.
Conservatives might ask if this is evidence of a failed business model. Prior to a few elections ago, the holding of conservatives to standards was a job primarily done—and done well—by groups with specific expertise: The National Rifle Association, the National Right to Life Committee, Americans for Tax Reform. These organizations spent decades building their political credibility, by cultivating the grass-roots and then by clearly and fairly delineating what is expected of politicians. Sign the anti-tax pledge. Don’t vote for “assault weapons” bans. Don’t support federal financing of abortions.
This is very different from groups that name the “real conservative” in each race. What are the criteria? Who knows, given various endorsements of tort-reform busters, and “bailout” supporters, and tax hikers. Even they can’t agree. In the Nebraska primary, FreedomWorks initially backed former state treasurer Shane Osborn, claiming he was the clear conservative. This was awkward since the Senate Conservatives Fund and the Club for Growth declared former Bush official Ben Sasse the clear conservative. And so in March, astonishingly, FreedomWorks abandoned its clear conservative for the other clear conservative. After all, we can’t have the arbiters of conservatism arbitrating with each other.
Every conservative should want a competitive primary system; it’s healthy, and when it works, it improves Washington. And so every conservative should now be asking why—this time—that really didn’t happen.
Comments are closed.
