October 5, 2005

The Pro-Pork National Republican Senatorial Committee

Marc Comtois

Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth has framed the National Republican Senatorial Committee's attack on Steve Laffey as evidence that they have taken a "pro-pork" position.

Clearly the folks at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) are paying no attention to blogger demands that the party structure help bring about fiscal restraint in Congress.

They are running a TV ad AGAINST an anti-pork, fiscally conservative Republican challenger to an incumbent who voted against the Bush tax cuts and had the second lowest score among Republican senators in the most recent National Taxpayers Union rating of Congress (PDF). The NRSC is in full attack mode against a candidate who has made pork a key issue.

What is the message here?

Clearly, if you are an incumbent, they dont care how you vote on spending or the Bush tax cuts. If you challenge an incumbent in a primary, they dont care how good you are on tax and spending issues. Instead, they will ATTACK you.

Don, Andrew and I have all commented on the ad already, and Andrew has been in the vanguard of the Porkbusters movement (and Don has chimed in, too). There can be little doubt that the core principle held by the NRSC is that they'll do anything to save their own bacon! [via Instapundit]

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

I found your site after Googling Laffey, which I did *after* spontaneously dashing this off to the NRSC:

"Your television ads attacking Steve Laffey in RI are a joke. You are Republicans, right? Hmm - based on all the negative gains recently I feel I certainly don't know "you". What I do know is that Lincoln Chafee is a RINO, and a man who does not deserve my respect. Why don't you run some ads for Patrick Kennedy while you're at it? Same difference. I hate to see the Democrats pulling the levers of power, but they are just as deserving as those who attack Laffey. Please, get some Republicans on your staff. If you are writing off the seat as safer with Chafee (for whatever that is worth to the leadership and the Administration) you should have said so as the basis for the ad. If you really believe that crap you produced is going to be effective with the true Republicans who keep informed, YOU DESERVE TO LOSE."

As you can see, I'm PO'd yet glad my rant resulted in finding your highly informative site. Keep up the good work. ~ rm

Posted by: rhodeymark at October 9, 2005 12:03 PM

Why are people upset about the NRSC ad? It's accurate and effectively highlights the hypocrisy of an individual who criticizes, while at the same time profits from, the oil industry. It seems like fair game to me.

What I don't understand is why Laffey chose the issues that he has spoken about so far.

Chafee has long been regarded as a tree-hugger and nobody is going to believe that he is in bed with big oil. Laffey's slam at Chafee to debate him at "any yacht club, anywhere" also came across as poorly to the average reader after the Projo gave the specifics of Laffey's financials.

Laffey is defining the issues right now, but the issues that he has chosen are issues that Chafee is widely considered to be strong on.

Posted by: Anthony at October 10, 2005 2:45 PM

Today(Tuesday,October 25,2005),I got an anti-Laffey flier in the mail.I do not like the anti-Laffey campaign and want BOTH the Chafee and Laffey campaigns sticking to the issue.The Republican National Senatorial Committee should stick to Sen. Chafee's virtues.I want a Republican to keep the 2006 United States Senate contested in Rhode Island.
Scott Bill Hirst

Posted by: Scott Bill Hirst at October 25, 2005 6:06 PM