If Ronald Reagan were in office today, he would be a primary target of the Club for Growth. Ronald Reagan would not be conservative enough and pure enough for them.
Is the Club for Growth a front for the DNC? It is just a gag question, but the way they destroy good Republicans is serious.
There is a monster growing in DC. It is called the Club for Growth. It is made up of people from the National Review, WSJ, and various conservatives. Pat Toomey is one of their officers. They are dangerous, detested George W. Bush, and are a threat to any elected Republican official who does not do their bidding. They demand purity. They are causing Republicans to lose elections.
“...”If their goal is to increase the Democrats’ numbers in Congress, they’re doing a very good job,” said Rep. Steven LaTourette (R., Ohio), a moderate who won his seat in 1994. “Do they want a permanent minority of 140 people as pure as Caesar’s wife, or a Republican majority that can get them 70% of the issues that are important to them?” (Republicans hold 178 of the 435 House seats and 40 of 100 Senate seats.)…”
The Club for Growth wants puppets. It does not want Republican officials who are capable of independent thought. It is a recipe for electoral disaster.
“…Club leaders insist that rarely has their involvement resulted in Democratic gains. Thirty-seven Republicans currently in Congress were elected with Club support, they add. Mr. Chocola said Republicans are in trouble not because of the Club but because they have deviated from the fiscal responsibility that the group supports. “People who criticize the Club’s efforts just want to stifle the competition,” he said. But Mr. LaTourette, the Ohio representative, said an overemphasis on ideological purity could make the GOP a permanent minority. “If the Democrats said everyone had to look like a Democrat from Massachusetts, they would not be the majority party,” he said….”
“…At a news conference after the event, Gingrich took a shot at the group, saying its work against Republicans was not helping the party. “I wish the Club for Growth would spend as much time and energy to defeat liberal Democrats as they do dividing Republicans,” said Gingrich.
There is piece in Politics Daily. It is absolutely chilling. Like Newt complained, they are now after anyone who criticizes them. When an organization becomes this powerful, it is time to pull the plug. They are after John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey, and were primarily responsible for the mess in NY-23. It has reached the point where a Republican had better scrape and bow to them if they want to be re-elected.
When an orgnization reaches this point, it is time to get rid of the organization – fast.
“…Criticism of the Club has not been limited to media elites, though. It has also made enemies among prominent Republicans. Mike Huckabee (whom the Club targeted for raising taxes) called it “the Club for Greed,” while John McCain derided it for opposing Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. Meanwhile, the Club has also come into conflict with former Speaker Newt Gingrich (who endorsed top Club targets, including Dede Scozzafava and Bob Bennett).
These were easier charges to level during bad Republican years such as 2006 and 2008, but it seems now that the Club for Growth’s vision may be coming to fruition and the critics may be silenced. Sometimes you have to cut out some of the underbrush before you can see growth, and with two fiscal conservatives who will now face off in Utah (the Club has vowed to stay out of the primary) as well as Toomey in Pennsylvania and Rubio in Florida, it is possible that the Club will be instrumental in electing three youngish, conservative and charismatic lawmakers to join the Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns of the Senate.
What is more, it is likely that Bennett’s loss might make other Republican incumbents toe the line — at least for the next several months. That’s certainly the intention. Club Vice President Andy Roth recently Tweeted, “I would recommend that all Republican Senators who are co-sponsors to Wyden-Bennett (S. 391) to remove their names immediately.” (S. 391, the “Healthy Americans Act,” was considered by many conservatives to be as bad as ObamaCare because of its inclusion of individual mandates, increased taxes and subsidies, and because it would have required Americans to pay their health care premiums through the IRS.) What this means for Orrin Hatch, Bennett’s fellow Utah senator, is anybody’s guess. The underlying lesson may be that movement conservatives have realized that — in certain states and districts — they don’t have to settle for establishment “go-along-to-get-along” types. Conservatives may be happy to settle for Mike Castle in Delaware or Mark Kirk in Illinois, but be less tolerant of “Republicans in Name Only” in such bastions as Utah and South Carolina….”
According to Hatch:
“…“Reagan treated me like a son or a brother,” Hatch recalls. “I was the only member of Congress sitting with him in New Hampshire when he had to win. I sat with him and Nancy that whole night [in 1980]. He always said that Republicans shouldn’t attack fellow Republicans. Now, I think he’d look at what happened in Utah and realize it was an extraordinary situation, understanding the anger. At the same time, though, he’d understand the importance of having conservatives with experience, like me, to be in there, fighting.”…“We all want conservatives to be elected,” Hatch continues. “But they may not be as conservative as Jim DeMint,” South Carolina’s junior senator. And even by this measure, Hatch says, he’s conservative enough: “I’ve out-conservatived him for 34 years. I’ve rated 90 percent [from the American Conservative Union] for my entire career.”…”