Revisiting the NRCC

Previously on WMD, I wrote about how the flap between Rep. Boehner and the NRCC raised by the Politico was much ado about nothing. I'd like to revise and extend those remarks a little by highlighting a piece by Charlie Cook originally written for the National Journal.

Few things get inside-the-Beltway juices flowing more than the prospect of partisan fratricide. The latest round of political infighting broke into view on September 21 in the Politico.

John Bresnahan and Patrick O'Connor reported that Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma was threatening to resign as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee if House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio forced NRCC Executive Director Pete Kirkham and Political Director Terry Carmack to quit. Sources suggested that Boehner wanted to replace the pair with "more-aggressive" people with more "realistic" views of the party's prospects in next year's elections.

The article went on to say that Republicans were frustrated with the NRCC over its "unrealistically rosy assessments of an ever-eroding landscape for congressional Republicans." Then there was more criticism of Cole and his aides for "casting their net too wide by targeting Democratic-controlled seats that Republicans have little chance of picking up next year."

And "GOP lobbyists on K Street" were said to be "complain[ing] that neither Cole nor Boehner has been visible enough in Washington" and that they have not "reach[ed] out to longtime allies" to help with fundraising.

Clearly, some GOP lawmakers, aides, and lobbyists are unhappy. But are these criticisms valid?

This is the question that I think deserves the most time. I think it is a good idea for GOP leadership in Washington to be questioning their strategies and adjusting to meet the realities of the situation we are in and for all intents and purposes, that appears to be what Leader Boehner was trying to do.

Let's take these one at a time...

Are Cole and the NRCC "unrealistically rosy" in their assessments? Having known Cole for the better part of two decades, I know he's an optimist, more likely to see a glass as half full than as half empty. But, having talked privately with him and the top NRCC staff, I'm certain that Cole and his aides are neither ignorant nor delusional. In fact, they're quite competent. They know that overt pessimism could easily cause panic inside the party, result in a stampede of retirements, and dry up money and recruiting.

Some might say Cole and his team should take a cue from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. For months he has been saying that the GOP would do well just to hold its own in the Senate in the 2008 elections. But McConnell's Senate Republicans are in a bit of a different situation than their House counterparts. First, the GOP's Senate prospects are direr. Second, by acknowledging its difficulty, the Senate GOP can use apocalyptic (and absurd) predictions of a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Democratic Senate with a Democratic president as a fundraising tool.

The criticism of Cole and the NRCC is somewhat contradictory and raises interesting questions: If it looks like the environment is going to be hostile to a particular party, should that party take a pass on supporting challengers and concentrate almost entirely on retaining its incumbents and open seats? Or, should it try to field a large, aggressive array of challengers to either force the opposition to spend time defending seats or put itself in a more promising position just in case the environment changes?

Near as I can tell, Rep. Cole knows what he is doing. Nobody is saying any different. I don't think the House GOP ought to take the position that they would be lucky to hold on to what they have as I do think that anything less than a full-throttled campaign to gain some seats and start the journey back to the majority could cause more problems in the long run. Not that the House GOP needs to actually win seats, but they have to campaign for them as if each seat matters...because each seat does matter.

Quite frankly, there are some incumbents in Congress who need to go and more than a few of them have an "R" behind their name. Don Young is the first name that comes to my mind, but there are plenty of others. It is time to settle in on the idea that if the GOP is to ever regain the majority in the House, corruption has to go first. That means it is time to stop supporting people who are corrupt. Shift those resources to candidates who have a shot at winning. How many Bob Ney's will it take?

Finally, there is bellyaching from lobbyists who feel they should be wet-nursed by the GOP leadership and staff, cry about a lack of Washington "visibility" on the part of party leaders, and complain they aren't being asked to help with fundraising. Did the NRCC change its address? Did it ever occur to these snivelers that they could simply raise money and write checks to the committee, and have a pretty fair chance of the checks being cashed? Sounds like whining to me.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And while we're expressing those sentiments, it is hard to argue with this either:

Bottom line: The Politico article contained a legitimate strategic question about how best to divide time and resources among the House GOP's incumbents, challengers, and open seats. But it also included undue criticism from folks who misunderstand the implications of expressing pessimism this early, as well as whining from people demanding attention from fellow Republicans who probably have better things to do.

Let's get back to work.