Six S.C. Republican State Senate nominees – Dee Compton, Mike Gardner, Shane Massey, Bill McKown, Mick Mulvaney and Mike Rose – are all facing incredibly tight races this November, elections that will have a profound impact in determining the ideological composition of our state government.
Not surprisingly, in races this close every little bit of help could end up making a huge difference, but supporters of these candidates are getting limited assistance from a group whose sole purpose is to help elect Republicans to the State Senate.
The S.C. Senate Republican Caucus, which blew through hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting RINO incumbents during the GOP primary, now finds itself strapped for funds as six real Republicans attempt to defeat Democrat candidates, all of whom appear to be flush with cash.
One supporter of Sen. Shane Massey told us that the Caucus is “flat broke and busted.”
Should the GOP lose any of these six contests, political analysts performing a post mortem should look no further than the estimated $350,000-400,000 the Caucus blew during the spring and summer defending incumbent RINO Senators Catherine Ceips, Jake Knotts, Jim Ritchie and Randy Scott in Republican primary elections.
Of those three races, only Knotts survived – and the pile of cash the Caucus unloaded trying to defeat Republicans Tom Davis, Shane Martin and Mike Rose is money that is now unavailable to the GOP nominees who desperately need it to defeat Democrats.
In Davis’ race in particular, the Caucus is said to have spent over $100,000 supporting State Sen. Catherine Ceips, who ended up losing by a dozen points to the former gubernatorial chief of staff.
Incidentally, Davis received a belated $5,000 contribution from the Caucus this week, but he sent the money back and requested that the Caucus spend it on a more competitive race.
We’ll be doing a more in-depth report on this after the election is over and detailed Caucus expenditures become available, but in the meantime keep your eyes on how these six races turn out.
It’ll be interesting to see just how much the Senate Republicans’ failed RINO protection efforts end up costing Republicans this fall …
By sid October 30, 2008 at 10:27 am
Conversely, one could say the primary challengers are to blame. The Senate Republican Caucus is supposed to defend Senate Republicans, isn’t it? You can lament that they were RINOS all you want, but the fact of the matter is that they were still Senate Republicans. You can also argue, of course, that the overall health of the Republican Party was what concerned these challengers. But knowing full well that November was going to bring out a whole lot of Democrats trying to “correct” eight years of Bush, these challengers should have known that the November races were going to need a whole lot of cash, including in races with Republicans more in line with their way of thinking. Yet, they still chose to mount campaigns that they knew were going to drain the Senate Republican Caucus’s war chest. So, is it better to purge the Senate of RINOS with the end result meaning non-RINOS could possibly lose to actual, honest-to-goodness Democrats? If that’s the case, then stop complaining. These “real Republicans” could have just as easily waited for their purge.
Ultimately, though, the real question should be, if the Senate Republican Caucus doesn’t defend Senate Republicans, regardless of whether or not you want to label them as RINOS, what is its purpose?
Also, if the challengers didn’t get their money from the Senate Republican Caucus, where did they get it, and has that source now dried up?
By Trey October 30, 2008 at 11:43 am
Very true, Will would do well to remember that neither Shane Martin, Mike Rose, nor Tom Davis(no matter how good a friend he is) are actually members of the S.C. Senate, so why should they be entitled to money from the Republican Caucus.
But yes, blowing 100k on a race like Ceips is outrageous, she was always going to lose, as was Randy Scott.
By Pres October 30, 2008 at 11:57 am
Scott would have won if he didn’t get charged (in the case that was eventually thrown out) of DUI. Scott didn’t lose by much, and that is because people don’t like Mike Rose.
By Never Go Full Retard October 30, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Sid, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
The point is that the SRC should not be spending money on GOP primary campaigns. What they should have done was fundraise during the primary season and save the money raised for the general election. Idiots.
By rick October 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Gotta love all the finger pointing….Rinos need to be removed when the opportunity arises. Your no better or worse off if the Dem does win. Since the Rino doesn’t so much work for the people as for his own interests.
By Tired of the good ole boys October 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm
The job of the Senate Republican Caucus should be to get more Republicans in the Senate – not to works against any Republicans who want to run for the Senate.
The reality is that their short-sighted decision to spend money protecting their buddies who deserved to be voted out of office will cost the party seats over the next four years.
Nationally, the Republican and Democratic Senate, Congressional, and Gubernatorial Committee’s don’t waste their valuable resources defending incumbent Republicans from primary challenges. If they did, their donors would be outraged and their leadership would be removed.
The same thing should happen in South Carolina.
By Earl Capps October 30, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The job of a party caucus should be to elect more Republicans and have enough respect for the folks who live and vote in the districts to figure out who they want to nominate. They should not be squandering money in intra-partisan pissing matches.
The candidates chosen by the voters in primary contests which are unbiased by heavy involvement by outside groups, such as caucuses, SCRG, etc., will generally be the stronger candidates in the fall anyway.
By sid October 30, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Retard,
I understand complex ideas may confuse you. I asked a simple question, which should be easy for someone simple to understand. What is the job of the Senate Republican Caucus? If you think it is to let Senate Republicans be defeated, whether it is in a primary or general election, then I guess that’s your opinion. A stupid and ill-informed opinion, but an opinion, nonetheless.
You can say what SHOULD be the job of the Caucus, but I asked what IS the job of the Caucus. Understand? I don’t know, and, apparently, you don’t either. But your ability to regurgitate boiler-plate insults that have been used by better minds than yours is impressive. Creativity, clearly, is not your friend.
So, hypothetically, a RINO decides to primary a true conservative Republican. Stay out? A Democrat decides to run as a Republican in the primary. Stay out?
The theory I’m suggesting is that, by having a policy of defending sitting Republican Senators, no matter if some might feel they are not Republican enough, you may be better served than not having any policy, and being forced to make controversial decisions based on who makes the best argument or raises the biggest stink when it comes to the primary. Or, if you decide to sit out all primaries, you run the risk of one of the two hypothetical situations coming to pass, and a true conservative gets knocked off because the Caucus sat on its money and did nothing. I’m not really backing any policy, per se. I’m just offering something to think about. Now, if you can’t understand that idea, maybe it’s best you leave contemplating complex political theories to those of us with IQs above room temperature (since you like tired old cliche insults). By the way, I keep my room at about 140. Tool.
By sid October 30, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Tired,
Where did you get the idea that the national committees don’t ever get involved in protecting incumbents who face primary challengers? Again, I’m not sure whether the policies of supporting incumbents in primaries is good or bad, overall, but my understanding is that the national committees do get involved in primaries. I lean towards it being a good policy, or at least better than never getting involved or trying to make the difficult decision as to when to get involved without a set policy. But I’d like to know why you think the national committees don’t involve themselves in primaries.
By psychoconservative October 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I agree with Rick. If a democrat defeats a rino what have we lost? Nothing. I never understood why the republican caucus would spend money in a primary. That’s republican against republican. Save the money to beat dems.
This is a bad year for Republicans. I was hoping that we could start clean with some changes locally and in Columbia. Remember, change starts locally. Clean up the shit in your backyard, the rest will take care of itself.
By Tired of the good ole boys October 30, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Sid,
Roll Call article titled “NRCC Still Sits Out Primaries” 5/19/08
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_139/news/25191-1.html?type=printer_friendly
“National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.) has no plans to change his policy of not getting involved in primary contests…
’I’m not reconsidering the NRCC’s approach,’ Cole said. ‘We could make a lot of errors, and at this point the last thing a candidate would want is to be the hand-picked candidate of Washington, D.C.’…
Cole said he believes the electoral prospects of Republican House candidates are better served by an NRCC that doesn’t pick sides in a primary, even subtly or behind the scenes…
Like the NRCC, the DCCC rarely offers a formal endorsement in a contested primary.â€
There may be talk about them getting involved behind what they think to be the more electable candidate in an OPEN seat races but the thought of one of the national committees spending money defending incumbents in a primary – not to mention a HUGE percentage of their electoral budget – is laughable.
Although not so funny since it has happened in our state.
By GameChanger October 30, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I’ve worked for both state and national committees and can tell you that it’s simply NOT the policy to defend incumbents with expenditures/contributions.
The committee/caucus remains cordial, but it’s sink or swim time during primary season. For any sane national/state committee, it makes good political sense to not anger your donors. That’s exactly what the SC Senate Caucus has done- further, they’ve marginalized their influence in the state by OPPOSING the people who are now their members. Would you go out of your way to help the caucus if they had blasted you in a primary? I sure wouldn’t.
By RINOHunter October 30, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Sid is obviously Wesley Donehue. Do you really believe what you’re writing, or are you just worried you won’t get paid this week?
By sid October 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I’d say in some circumstances, a RINO losing to a Dem is no big deal. In others, it is. If that loss shifts the balance of power, then that’s not good for Republicans. If that loss means Republicans lose a supermajority, then that’s not good for Republicans. In both circumstances, if there are more true, conservative Republicans than RINOS, then those losses are not good for conservatives.
Another hypothetical situation to consider is a true conservative Republican, who holds a key leadership position gets primaried by a RINO. Stay out?
I’m also unclear as to what, exactly, makes a RINO a RINO in South Carolina. Is it because they don’t hold conservative views on any conservative issues, or just some? What’s the formula? Or do bloggers and political wonks get to make that decision?
Politics does not operate inside an ideological vaccuum, so it’s hard for me to accept what seems to be this feeling that there are so many absolutes in this discussion. But maybe I’m wrong. If someone can tell me the definition of a RINO, as it applies to Ceips, Knotts, Ritchie, and Scott, maybe I can better understand why folks think what it is good 3 of the 4 lost. Are there any conservative/Republican issues where their views pass muster?
By rick October 30, 2008 at 6:00 pm
The way this election season is shaping up….the republican party will have at least 2 years to get their trash together for the next election. They’ve spent so much time betraying their base on both a local and national level that they may be allowing a 3rd party to move in on their turf. And that I like…….the 3rd party part…..if they can find a base that isn’t viewed as looney…
By Never Go Full Retard October 30, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Sid,
It is the purpose of the SRC to get Republicans elected to the senate, not to get individuals elected in primaries. Basically, your theory rests on the assumption that the jackasses in Columbia know who is the better conservative than the voters in the primaries.
Your hypothetical about a democrat running in a GOP primary is hypocritical at best seeing as how many of the incumbants supported by the SRC have voting records more in line with democrats than their challengers.
And God help us if people with IQs of 140 have been running the legislature for the last decade because apparently an IQ of 140 doesn’t mean you know how to balance a check book.
By Wesley October 30, 2008 at 6:33 pm
RINOHunter – sorry bud, but I’m not sid. I’m little too busy on the campaign trail to get involved in this argument right now. North Myrtle Beach today. Lancaster tomorrow.
- Wes
By RINO Definer October 30, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Sid,
Certainly the RINO definition will vary somewhat by person but here is one way this Republican looks at it…
The Republican-controlled legislature increased government spending by over 40% the past three years – that’s twice the rate of increase of the average state and the federal government. Amongst other things, they wasted tens of millions on a slush fund for silly festivals and other pork. Sanford vetoed hundreds of millions in spending that was overridden by those Republican legislators.
SO, if you were a Republican in that legislature who didn’t fight leadership and try to control spending and you consistently voted to override Sanford’s budget vetoes, you are clearly RINO.
And, if you are a Republican reading this blog who doesn’t think that a legislator’s support for double-digit growth in spending for three straight years makes him or her a RINO, then you are probably a RINO too.
By Loser October 30, 2008 at 10:43 pm
ceips/davis (Safe GOP), caucus lost.
scott/rose (Safe GOP), caucus lost.
ritchie/martin (Safe GOP), caucus lost.
notice a trend?
will they learn their lesson in 4 years?
will they actually be able to raise the money since the entire state just saw them blow halfa mill?
By sid October 30, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Tired,
That’s interesting, but I wasn’t talking about only endorsements. Plus, the “rarely” qualifier regarding the DCCC indicates they, at least, do make endorsements from time to time. But what this article was talking about was money. I’ve spoken to federal lobbyists who tell me it is not uncommon for committees at the national level to fund the campaigns of incumbents. Standard policy, I guess not, but according to folks involved, it does happen.
By sid October 30, 2008 at 11:14 pm
RINOHunter is obviously grasping at straws.
By sid October 30, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Retard,
No, my theory rests on the presumption that the Senate Republican Caucus feels its job is to protect Senate Republicans. The theory goes further to say that said protection is offered at the primary level, and not just at the general level. Try to keep up.
Now, you may state what you’d like to be the purpose of the Caucus all you want, but unless you can point me to something that actually says this is what the Caucus is supposed to do, then your words are pretty much meaningless.
As for my hypothetical being hypocritical, I don’t think you understand what you are talking about. Oh, and the word is incumbent, Retard. But like I asked before, what is your criteria for determining these particular incumbents that are part of the discussion have voting records that are more in line with Democrats than their challengers? Being fiscally conservative is a great thing, in my book, but not the only issue that I use to qualify someone as being conservative or in line with my idea of what a true Republican should be. Also, Retard, their challengers don’t have voting records.
Finally, the IQ comment was in reference to the people DISCUSSING complex political issues. It had nothing to do with people in office, but about people who visit blogs like this one. Clearly, you’ve ruled yourself out of the discussion.
By sid October 30, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Definer,
If you feel that spending is the only criteria for defining a RINO, does that mean you consider a fiscally conservative Republican who votes to weaken the military, ban guns, and promote abortion to be a solid Republican?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m opposed to big government and frivolous spending on pork. But there are other issues to consider. I’m a big fan of the 2A, so I don’t care how fiscally conservative a Republican is if he votes to ban guns. I don’t think I’d call him a RINO, but I certainly wouldn’t vote for him.
Ultimately, I guess what I’m saying is, this is probably not the first time the Senate Republican Caucus spent money in the primary to defend an incumbent. If it is, then I guess there’s a legitimate gripe. But if not, then I guess folks shouldn’t be too surprised when what has happened before happened again.
Also, these successful challengers got money for their campaigns, right? Where did that come from, and why cannot that/those resource/s be utilized to help fund campaigns of these other races mentioned? I presume none of these guys are considered RINOS, so why can’t they tap into the same resource/s that funded the challengers. Or did that/those source/s blow all its/their money to defeat the RINOS, and now has nothing left to help true conservatives? Wouldn’t that be ironic?
By RINO Definer October 31, 2008 at 12:53 am
Sid,
Check out the comments above…the four races where the Caucus blew their budget are for safe Republican seats so the folks who beat the RINO’s don’t need money for their fall races. Katrina Shealy wouldn’t have either. Not to mention, the challengers were outspent as usual so the big money was wasted to protect RINO incumbents and isn’t available to help Republicans in tight races against Democrats.
I pointed to the insane increase in government spending to show that we have a big RINO problem in our state legislature. You want to talk about promoting abortion, weakening the military, and banning guns. Fine – those are all anti-Republican positions as well but not issues in our state for two reasons. One, because Republicans haven’t proposed doing those things in SC there is little debate or controversy around them…they are moot at this point.
Secondly, we are talking state government here – legislators have little to no influence on our nations’s military, on federal gun control laws, or whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court overtuns Roe v. Wade. We can come up with lots of anti-Republican positions but let’s focus on the ones that are relevent to the job.
The most important role that state legislatures play is how to allocate resources….in South Carolina that’s about $19 billion a year. That’s not the only criteria but it’s a huge one. And it’s one which shows that the vast majority of Republican legislators in our state will spend as much money as they can get their hands on. They are not fiscally conservative. Therefore, they are only Republicans in name.
I haven’t heard anyone say that the Senate Republican Caucus in South Carolina has spent money on primaries before. Even if they did, there is no way that they blew this much of their budget – especially to lose 75% of their races. And your “if they’ve done it before” rationalization certainly wouldn’t make it right anyway.
Bottom line, whoever runs the Senate Republican Caucus made a primary gamble to try and keep more reform-minded Republicans out of the Senate and lost. Big time. Unfortunately needy Republican Senate candidates are now paying the price. Whoever runs the caucus should pay a heavy one as well.
By Gen. Longstreet October 31, 2008 at 10:13 am
Dammit, Col. Peeler. I need more artillery, and I need it fired directly at that rocky hill. Chamberlain and his Maine boys are dug in. Do you expect me to send Sam Hill up against them with a bee-bee gun? God in heaven, Col. Peeler. What in the world were you thinking, wasting all that shot in the Devil’s Den?
By sid October 31, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Definer,
I understand which races we are talking about. One, however, is apparently not a safe seat. Or is the Rose race mentioned at the start of the article not actually a close race, as the article states? What I asked, however, was whether or not the folks who funded the challenges are capable of funding the (apparently) equally fiscally conservative candidates who now need financial help? Or were all the challengers self-funded? The follow-up question is, if folks were so gung-ho about knocking off what they considered to be RINOS in favor of more fiscally conservative candidates that they contributed money to those challengers, are they now contributing money to these important races. If they are, great. If they are not, why not?
As for my question regarding what is a RINO, you have answered it, for which I thank you. In South Carolina, the label applies to Republicans who are considered to be fiscally irresponsible. I’m not from South Carolina, but am interested in its politics, so I needed the clarification. In other parts of the country, the term RINO is applied under different criteria, so I guess it’s safe to say that it’s not an exact term, unless you take into consideration where it is being used. Even then, thouh, there are likely shades of grey.
I agree with your point about national defense as it applies to SC state politics. The term RINO is used so widely, though, that I did feel it should be part of the equation. But you are right, for the most part, that SC state legislators can do little to affect national defense.
As for abortion, I think you’re a little off base on what can be done at the state level. No, they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade. But they can do plenty. Bills dealing with abortion are introduced every session, so you may want to consider including that into your criteria.
They also don’t have any real influence on federal gun laws, but the vast majority of gun laws exist at the state and local level. And banning guns isn’t the only issue. Again, every session there are numerous bills introduced dealing with firearms. Some good, some bad (depending on your point of view, of course). But they are out there, so you should add that to your mix.
I clearly see that the main factor in determining what constitutes a RINO in SC is the budget, at least by your standard. That answers my question on that front, for which I again thank you, but will again suggest you take other issues into consideration.
Just as you haven’t heard any say the Caucus spent money on primaries in the past, I haven’t heard anyone say they have not. That’s what I’m trying to figure out. Again, if it has, then the challengers should have known the potential for the unintended consequnces of their campaigns. If it has not, then there is certainly a gripe to be made. And if they have, then talking about the amount this time would need to be balanced against what kind of, and how many, primary challenges were faced in the past. If you’re committed to protecting the incumbent (a position I understand you oppose), then the first goal is protection, and the second is managing the resources wisely. Perhaps they were managed unwisely, but to achieve the goal, resources had to be expended.
I believe the person responsible you are talking about is Sen. Peeler, at least, on paper.
By Gen. Longstreet October 31, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Sid, with respect: you, sir, are a moron with too much time on his hands. Get back to work.
By sid November 1, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Longstreet,
Like Retard, if you cannot understand any concepts more complicated than, “RINO, bad, must stop RINO,” then I suggest you restrain yourself from attempting to comment. Especially if the best you can do is question my intellect and use of time, rather than actually try to explain why you feel my ideas are not worthy of consideration.
Then again, you use the name of a man who groveled before those who deated his cause, begging for amnesty, then became one of the most reviled scalawags of the time. Good choice. Respect from you is likely something few would covet.
By Gen. Longstreet November 2, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Sid: “restrain yourself from commenting” is what you mean to say, son; you see, since I did in fact comment, the words “attempting to” are inappropriate. You betray verbal incompetence, sir. As for having to explain why your ideas are dreck, well, res ipsa loquitur.
By sid November 3, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Scalawag,
No, I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. As usual, you have shown you don’t have the capacity to look beyond that which is carefully spelled out to you. But since you are apparently so dense, I’ll explain that the comment was meant to be humorous. Since you also appear to lack a sense of humor, I’ll further explain that by saying “from attempting to comment,” I was referring to your inability to form anything beyond the shallowest of thoughts. Thus, I implore you to refrain from ATTEMPTING to comment because it is so far beyond your ability to come up with a thought that warrants anything more than wondering what kind of drugs your parents were on that night so long age when they realized they were without a condom, but figured they’d take a chance. See, your attempts are so weak that you shouldn’t even try. Too complicated for you? Not surprising.
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.