The Club for Growth PAC has endorsed Tom Graves:
Club for Growth PAC announced two endorsements today in open seat races for the U.S. House of Representatives – State Senator Tim Huelskamp in Kansas’ First Congressional District and State Representative Tom Graves in Georgia’s Ninth Congressional District. Both candidates are proven conservative leaders with strong records in support of pro-growth fiscal policies.
“Tim Huelskamp stands out as a champion of limited government and economic freedom,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “Unlike some of the other Republicans in this race, Tim has compiled an impressive record and demonstrated the leadership skills necessary to fight for free-market policies in Congress.”
“Tom Graves has been an outspoken advocate for tax relief and budget reform in the Georgia Legislature, and we believe he’ll bring that same enthusiasm to Congress,” added Chocola. “Tom is an up and coming leader who will stand up for taxpayers and fight to protect our freedoms in Washington.”
In the current election cycle, Club for Growth PAC has endorsed four other candidates for Congress, including Kevin Calvey in Oklahoma’s Fifth District, Pat Toomey for Senate in Pennsylvania, and incumbent Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn.“In politics, it’s rare to find the consistent and outstanding records we’ve seen with Tim Huelskamp and Tom Graves,” Chocola concluded. “As we face the prospect of bigger government, more spending, and higher taxes under President Obama, it is all the more important to support such principled leaders who will be strong fiscal conservatives in Congress.”
{ 21 comments }
I’m just gald to see Count Chocola has moved on to a job he can be proud of.
And, congrats to Mr. Graves.
This should help Graves.
But just remember, Club for Growth has elected almost as many democrats as republicans. Their real skill is beating or damaging republicans in primaries so that democrats win the general. They almost single handedly got rid of every republican congressman in the Northeast, and quite a few in the west.
Not much chance of that here. But good for Tom Graves. His voting record is deserving.
You mean like the $150K they gave Westmoreland in the primary?
I don’t know where you came up with that stat about them elected democrats AlanR.
This is a big win for Graves, coming on the heels of a powerful weekend for his campaign.
I don’t have stats to prove it, but I can think of several races where AlanR’s statement rings true. They target moderate Republicans in a primary, believing that all Republicans should fit the Club for Growth idea of the Republican Party rather than representing the interests of particular districts. (I believe that goal is contrary to the intent of the House of Representatives, as an aside.) As a result, there are moderate Dems in seats where moderate Republicans used to be today. The Club for Growth put up a primary challenge for the moderate Republicans and funded them, and these very conservative Republicans didn’t win over voters in the general.
Holly,
Reading between the lines, are you saying Tom is more moderate than conservative? I’m not taking sides, I just want a clarification.
GOPGeorgia,
I think you’re misunderstanding the following:
“The Club for Growth put up a primary challenge for the moderate Republicans and funded them, and these very conservative Republicans didn’t win over voters in the general.”
The CFC does more harm than good when it takes out moderates in moderate districts.
Anyway, there’s one case in Michigan in 2006 where the CFC went after a moderate Republican and the seat flipped because the CFC endorsed candidate was out of touch with the district.
Look at Maryland last cycle for another example. The CFC caused then long-time Rep. Gilchrest to endorse Kratovil, the Democrat, in the General because Harris was too far to the right of the district.
The CFC comes off as one of the purist organizations that cannot fathom the idea that there are more people out there than those who agree with them 0% of the time and 100% of the time.
Not at all. I know very little about him. My post was solely about the Club for Growth.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I think the Club has some great principles. But I think their tactics are all wrong. Wouldn’t it make more sense to lobby the person who agrees with you 80% of the time – or work on the grassroots to change a district’s perception of a particular issue – than it would be to toss out a sitting member (who agrees with you 80% of the time) and have him replaced by someone who holds fewer of your principles?
The CFC comes off as one of the purist organizations that cannot fathom the idea that there are more people out there than those who agree with them 0% of the time and 100% of the time.
This sounds a general statement describing those who have taken over the Republican Party for now.
ByteMe,
The far left Kos wing of my party is just as bad. Look at Howard Dean wanting to primary the Democrats that actually produced a majority over the past 4 years.
The difference being that the far left wing of the party is not saying to kick everyone else out the way the wack-job wing of the Republican Party (I’m talking to you Rush!) want to.
In fact, the Democratic Party has figured it out: if you want to win, bring many different factions together under the tent. The Republicans want to be right and have a pure message; the Democrats want to win by cobbling together lots of different groups with messages that appeal to as many people as possible.
Illegal immigration: saying “kick illegals out” alienates the Hispanic population.
Complaining the Obama is not really a citizen of the USA: alienates blacks who perceive this as just veiled racism.
Trying to block health care: only appeals to about 30% of the population.
This country functions best when both parties come to the table with ideas that appeal to a broad cross-section of the country. Right now, only one party is doing a good job of that and the other party is making headlines by being noisy and threatening violence if they don’t get their way (see the 9/12 teabagger signs). We’ll see in 2010 how well that’s working.
Speaking of violence:
I received a threatening voice mail at 11:55pm last night from an Obama supporter about the Tea Parties. He said the message was for the Tea Party organizers in Atlanta. He called us disrespetful sons of bitc3$. He said he voted for President Obama and he inspires him every day. He said with our stupid signs and Naz bullsh!t we are destroying this country. He ended with I hope I can see you on the streets one day.
Also, while in D.C. for the March on D.C. , a group of use were going to a rally for the Tea Party Express Bus. An Obama supporter with dreadlocks accosted a women walking in front. The Obama supporter screamed profanity at the woman and said that Bush killed her Mother that had Lupus and talked about how great Obama was. She would not let the woman pass by. She began pushing the woman. I stepped and told the Obama supporter that we were there for a peaceful protest and that I would call the police if I had to. The woman the spit a mouthful of food on me. I was able to doge most of it and proceed to dial 911. She the spit on me again. I began waling toward and she started walking very fast away then the running. We did notify the police and they searched for her.
Byteme, when you talk about violence, you need to look at your own party…
My party?
BDA? Beer Drinkers for America!
And, yes, the Tea Party sedition is hurting the country I love. People need to fight back against their brand of fake patriotism.
You should have asked for more help from tea party protesters and enacted a citizens arrest. In most states, spiting is a form of battery.
Not to mention the democrat party.
re:
Illegal immigration: saying “kick illegals out” alienates the Hispanic population.
Complaining the Obama is not really a citizen of the USA: alienates blacks who perceive this as just veiled racism.
Trying to block health care: only appeals to about 30% of the population.
So what? just so happens I agree with all those things and so do a lot of Americans. Because IMHO real conservatism is about maintaining the basics like rule of law and the Constitution. And conservatives would like to think that the politicians have a few “lines in the sand” which they stand for without changing their tune in response to the polls. How are they conservative if they’re not defending something that they believe in?
I don’t disagree with you, GF. What I’m saying is that it’s the road to being in the political minority in this country. Which ties back to my original comment about the Republicans’ binary view of “belonging” and how it’s going to hurt them and the party until they figure out that building a tent big enough to hold divergent views is the only way you get to lead.
But, hey, if you think the Republicans should be a southern-only party, then the strategy is working perfectly. I happen to think that it’s hurting the country, though.
You make a good point.
The reason so many non-conservatives liked Reagan was because he was positive. The reason Obama attracted so many independents in the last election was because he was positive. Americans know there are problems and that we must deal with them, but who honestly doesn’t hear imagery like “morning in America” and feel at least a bit better about the country’s situation?
Republicans must find a way to present their principles in a more positive manner. Does that mean change the principles? Nope. But there’s a way to go about things that comes across as positive. And yes, we cannot continue to push out anyone but the most conservatives if we want to regain the majority. Reagan knew it. Newt knew it.
But you say the liberals of the Democratic party know better than to push for that kind of thing. Wasn’t it just a few months ago that we had posters on this blog suggesting that Jim Marshall – Jim Marshall – should have a “real Democrat” primary him? The wackos exist on both sides, and eventually, the wheels will come off the party’s current unity. It’s already started. This is one of the reasons the country ebbs and flows from Democrats to Republicans and back. It’s just a matter of time.
Jim Marshall’s about as conservative as they come in the Democratic Party (he actually used Limbaugh in his radio ads). Not to say they aren’t still wackos.
What do you mean “still”?
Exactly. No far-left liberal is going to win in that district, so if you tossed Marshall in a primary, the seat would almost assuredly go to a Republican.
IMHO politics is about standing for a few things and doing it diplomatically and making as few enemies as possible. This is why I’m suspicious of some of the race baiters. Balkanization is simply a great way to keep the rank and file in the trenches. And as some might remember I’ve always been against “trench warfare”. As a side note, it looks like this guy “Hal Turner” was “on the payroll” when he suggested that Cynthia McKinney should be hanged.
Comments on this entry are closed.