State Republican parties illumine the road not traveled last year by House GOP

We heard the other day that the Republican National Committee’s fund raising efforts are failing because of massive grassroots GOP opposition to President Bush’s immigration policy, which the RNC, the president’s creature, supports.

In today’s Washington Times Ralph Hallow expands on the story further. Not only are Republican voters refusing to donate to the RNC, they are giving their money to state Republican parties that have taken a clear stand against illegal immigration. Randall Parker comments:

State parties calling up for donations are pitching against the S.1348 bill by calling it the Bush-Kennedy bill and getting big donations. Yes, they are pitching against a sitting Republican incumbent President and the fund raising pitch is working. [Italics added.]

I italicized that last sentence because, while it is very heartening, it also points to a tragic truth. Through all of 2006 I urged the House Republicans as strongly as I could from this tiny perch to publicize their opposition to the Senate immigration bill, S. 2611. They had heroically stopped the bill cold in the House, refusing even to go into a House-Senate conference, an almost unprecedented act of defiance. But they did not inform the voters that they had done this. In fact, they seemed ashamed of having done it. In a classic example of seizing defeat from the jaws of victory, they allowed the media to spin the story as, “Do-Nothing Congress Fails to Pass Immigration Reform,” instead of as, “House Republicans Stand like a Stone Wall against the Worst Bill in American History.” They did not, as I argued they must do, run for re-election saying, “We defeated amnesty. Vote for us, and we will do the same next year.” Why? Because it would have meant running as opponents of the president’s immigration policy, and they were just too deferential to do that. So the loony-left Democrats won control of the House, creating the real possibility that S.1348, which is even worse than S.2611, might be passed this year. Great job, fellas. That’s where your Republican-style deference gets you. It reminds me of the theme of Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones: It is not enough for a man to be good, he must also seem good. Last year the House Republicans were very good on immigration. But they didn’t make sure that the voters knew it. So they lost, and we all lost.

And now, lo and behold, it turns out that state Republican parties that take a strong and explicit stand against President Bush’s amnesty policy are rewarded for it by increased donations from grassroots members. Why, oh why couldn’t the Congressional Republicans see the same last year, that their unyielding rejection of Bush’s open-borders madness was not something to shrink from but to shout to the skies? It was so obvious that that was their ticket to victory.

- end of initial entry -

Joseph C. writes:

I enjoyed your article about how the RNC is feeling it in the wallet due to Jorge Busheron’s support of the Rape of America Act.

One huge question that the writer did not answer is just what the state party will do with the money. That is, will the state GOP organizations simply remit (or loan—har har) money to the RNC? Will they support Senate candidates (e.g., Norm Coleman, Saxby Chambliss, etc.) that are running on the GOP ticket? Or will this money be used solely to support legislators whose stances are in line with the wishes of the donors, while starving the Republicans who go against the wishes of their constituents?

I am very cynical. And I know money is fungible. Noble intentions will do no good if a state RNC bites the bullet, chooses the lesser of two evils, and gives the GOP candidate the same support they would have received from the RNC anyway.

My own strategy is to give money to the Democrats opposing the RINOs. If I am going to be represented by a liberal, best it be a Democrat, so that we can fight him in the future.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 04, 2007 06:54 PM | Send