Matt, I'm sorry, but I cannot agree. E-mails, phone calls, faxes sent, I've tried it all! The loudest voice you can use on a politician is with your pocketbook! You can bet when they feel the squeeze, they'll make some demands! I blogged about the same thing today!

well, then kiss our majorities goodbye.

Here's an email I just sent to Ken Mehlman in response to a request for donations:

Dear Ken,
I'm a very ardent supporter of the President and the Party. However, I am withholding further personal donations until such time as the administration sees fit to secure our borders and exercise the line item veto on the excessive federal spending. I will gladly contribute when I see the majority party start acting as such.

Sincerely,
Jason Smith

The loudest voice you can use on a politician is with your pocketbook!

Brilliant. Remove the support for our party. Why not go one step further and send a big fat check to the Democrats? Yea, that'll send a message to those wimpy Republicans.

You say the loudest voice you can use on a politician is with your pocketbook. I disagree. They are nothing without the support of their constituency. Most of those give not one red cent - just a vote on election day, and phone calls, emails and other forms of feedback between elections.

The loudest voice in the foreign policy arena is a high-yield thermonuclear device, but we don't use it because of the terrible destruction and after-affects. The same is true with the "loud voice" of the support we give to the party. Stop supporting them and they will lose at the polls and the Democrats will gain the advantage. I'm sure that those Republicans that lost will "get the message" but to what end? You've handed the majority to the Democrats to send a message to the Republicans? That's just plain crazy.

I don't know about you, but my contributions have been to the RNC. They are the people that organize and fund campaigns. They do not directly control elected officials. Taking their funding away only diminishes their ability to win elections. Is that really what you want?

I do not intend to stop supporting individual candidates, Scar, but the RNC. They need to voice our concerns to the politicians, because they are not listening to us! I will support those candidates who are doing their job, and those who are wimping out, no dough!

When they're afraid to bust the judicial filibuster, or camp out 24/7 to force the Dem's hands.... when they're pandering to Mexican voters and leaving our borders wide open (despite the obvious effectiveness of the MMP)... when they're allowing bazillions of wasteful federal programs to continue to receive support.... then what the hell is the difference between our party and theirs?

How many of the not-one-dimers have ever spoken to their Precinct Committeeperson (or run for the position if they don't have one)? How many have run for office themselves or attempted to draft someone to run for office who shares their views? How many of them actually participate in the Republican Party, rather than simply sitting on their butts and whining about it?

Matt: >>And I don't know about you, but I'd take Arlen Specter over Patrick Leahy any day.

Well goodie, then you'll have no objection to John McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008?>>s

Gotta disagree.

Last summer, we delegates to the Texas GOP convention adopted a platform plank supporting a state constitutional amendment imposing a 3% cap on the rate of growth in property tax appraisals. When this amendment was introduced this year (with a 5% cap rather than the 3% the platform called for), 36 Republican members of the Texas House of Representatives voted against even allowing the measure to be debated on the House floor. Our state party did nothing to support those of us working to write the platform into state law, and our Republican state officials (all of whom backed the amendment) couldn't get the recalcitrant members to support this key platform plank. Now why should I give to the state party, which will turn around and use that money, in part, to reelect those 36 membrs of the legislature?

I do not intend to stop supporting individual candidates, Scar, but the RNC.

If you had read my comment correctly, you would have noticed that I said that the RNC is the one organization that we should make sure gets its funding. It is responsible for running the Republican party election machine - getting the Republican word out to the people, putting together campaigns, getting funding through contributions large and small. They do not have anything to do with what is going on in the congress.

They need to voice our concerns to the politicians, because they are not listening to us!

I don't know how you know that. Or do you mean that they're just not listening to you? The politician that ignores his constituents is not long for the political world. They may need money, but if money was the most important factor, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett would be President. No politician will always do things exactly the way you want them to but you have to take a step back and look at the big picture. Do you really want more John Kerrys, Robert Byrds, Ted Kennedys, and John Edwards in congress? Do you really want to hand Hillary Clinton the White House? In other words, are you nuts?

I will support those candidates who are doing their job, and those who are wimping out, no dough!

You should. And if you are contributing to one of them who is letting you down, stop it. And tell them why you are stopping it. But for crying out loud, don't punish the party apparatus for something people like John McCain and Olympia Snowe are doing. Go after them.

That would be me, Scott. I am not only a GOP national team leader, but a member of the local group...which is consisted of others who are just as frustrated as I am! I have 20-30 toll calls to D.C., not to mention various state offices, from my phone and my fax machine to prove it! The point is, they are not listening!

When they're afraid to bust the judicial filibuster,...

If you really believe that there is no difference between the parties, their values and their agendas, then I submit you are incredibly misinformed. There are plenty of differences between the parties, and I suspect that you know there is. This kind of rhetoric is exactly what the Democrats are hoping for. If I were Howard Dean, I'd be sending you a personally-signed thank you note by special courier. What is ironic to me is that those of you who are making these outrageous statements are doing exactly what you accuse the Republican politicians of doing. No spine. no backbone, and no courage of your convictions.

My nephew, who just finished USMC boot camp and had to make it through the Crucible did so with stress fractures of his legs. He didn't whine and quit, he kept sucking it up. I suggest you let this 18 year old kid who is now a Marine serve as an example and suck it up.

Now why should I give to the state party, which will turn around and use that money, in part, to reelect those 36 membrs of the legislature?

So withholding support from the party which will inevitably lead to Democrats replacing Republicans is what you think constitutes being wise? How so?

I have been seriously struggling with this issue because of all the things the "no-dimers" have brought up, but I'm in agreement with Matt and Scar. I'm not 100% sure of the solution, but I know shooting ourselves in the foot isn't it.

The liberals definitely don't all agree on anything except to defeat conservative Republicans. If we screw our own party, there won't be anyone to do what we want and the Dims will walk all over us (worse than it appears they are now).

There's got to be another solution than to give the LSM fodder by saying we won't support our party financially. As a parent, I understand the importance of portraying a united front with my husband to our children even when we disagree on details.

If we support the RNC and make it abundantly clear we won't re-elect gutless wonders, we will be listened to. President Bush got re-elected in spite of the well organized forces trying to prevent it - that in itself speaks of the power we have and of what we can accomplish. We shouldn't lay down and wet on ourselves now.

A house divided will fall, people, remember that!

BTW - I finally made the decision to restart my contributions just before I saw this.

To alienated brother and sister elephants:

Senate leadership needs to force the issues or allow someone who will to take their place. If the measure(s) doesn't pass, we can identify the bad apples and hit it again after dealing with them. Wholely withdrawing party support won't do anything to the bad apples. They are pandering to the base that re-elected them as "mavericks". It will hurt those that do stand on principle whether steadfast, mostly dependable, or there when it counts.

Senate Leadership:

You are officially on notice. The people who feel alienated enough to withdraw support are not to be taken lightly. Find your spine or chance losing their support.

I'm reading through the comments in this thread and I can understand both sides. It seems like the general advice of those who do not want people to stop giving to the GOP is no matter the inaction of the GOP, keep giving them money, because they are better than the Democrats. And while I understand this, it is also not very inspiring to those of us who have not taken an interest in politics prior to recently (in my case, prior to 9/11/2001).

From the personal anecdotes here from people who have been directly involved with the campaigns of their local, state and national representatives, I'm reading that they did not get their return on investment. I'm also reading that people have written letters and called their representatives, all for naught. These are the exact things that people, who say we should not withhold donating to the party, say we should do to make our voices heard. I've also e-mailed and written to my state Senators, as well as to my GOP leaders, only to get form letters back or no response at all to my written letters. My girlfriend, who teaches in high school, had a class project last year in which she wanted to teach her class the importance of getting involved in politics and how much they could have an effect on their local government by writing to voice their opinions to the Governor and State Senators. She called Senator Stabenow's and Governor Granholm's offices to make sure that they knew there were letters coming in from high schoolers and she would appreciate some response back to the kids from their state Representatives. She was told they would get one. They never did.

Now, the most important issue in today's world is a strong stance on Foreign Relations as well as a strong stance in the War on Terror, which will never go away. So the only logical solution, given the platforms of today's major political parties, is to keep Republicans in office. While they disagree on domestic issues, most, if not all, toe the party line and have supported the President on the War on Terror. However, I think we all realize some of the jelly backbones that some of the Senators have and if there were ever to be a Democrat President, most of these spineless twits would go along with the Democrat President, even if s/he were weak on National Defense and did not have America's best interest in mind, because they would want to make friends with the Democrats, as they all do now. So this tells me that until the Democrats get their act together, we can never take any action (stop donating to the GOP) that would put a Democrat in the White House. Even if we had a majority in Congress, they would bend over to the wishes of the President as most of them do now, all for the sake of popularity or simply because they have no convictions.

Secondary to making sure America is strong on the War on Terror, there are a lot of other issues which people deem important: Illegal Immigration, Judicial Filibusters, Judicial Nominees/Judicial Tyranny, Traditional Marriage, Social Security, etc. And that is just touching the surface. However, these are the main issues that I see are most important to the majority of Americans who support Republicans. Now, what I have a huge problem with is knowing that I have to support the GOP even when they do not come through on all the issues that I listed above. I understand now that the alternative is too frightening (losing the GOP majority and having Democrats with full control with no checks and balances since the Judiciary is on their side and the President can only do so much), but I am like many others wondering what I have to do to get through to the GOP leaders that their supporters stand behind them and want them to push forward with their agenda. That is why we voted them into office. They have a mandate, go execute it.

It seems like they listen more to the MSM, read the Washington Post and NYT and follow all the ridiculous polls and worry more about that then what their constituents have to say. While I am glad they are in Washington to do their jobs, they need to get back to their states more often to realize that what they hear in the media is NOT the mainstream and not what America thinks and feels. It is simply what the media wants them to think we think and feel.

But I guess this is politics. Vote for the lesser of two evils. We are not getting what we want with the GOP, but they are better than the DNC. As I said before, this is very uninspiring. George W. Bush inspired me to follow politics with his leadership and integrity after 9/11. However, the inspiration is dwindling now that he does nothing about illegal immigration, the GOP Senators are caving on Social Security and the "Constitutional Option" and their efforts to inform the public of the facts of the issues is just atrocious. It seems that after November 2004, it is back to politics as usual. This is not inspiring and is very dangerous for the future. People like to be inspired. If a Democrat comes along that inspires people, he will be voted into office. That is scary.

It seems we are coming to a crossroads here. One road leads to unconditional support of the party regardless of their action or inaction on issues which we deem important. The other road leads to giving in to a lack of inspiration from our government leaders and giving up on trying to make a difference when our past efforts have failed. Neither road is good. Neither will be easy. But we must choose one. Our future depends on it.

Robert Novak, writing for Real Clear Politics, thinks that the Republicans have the votes necessary to end the judicial filibusters. He says:

Republican leaders count only two or three GOP senators who will vote against the efforts to end, by a straight majority vote, filibusters on confirmation of judicial nominations.

Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island will not support this move, and they are likely to be joined by Sen. John McCain of Arizona. That would mean 52 senators would go along with the parliamentary maneuver attempting to end filibusters on judges. Only 50 are needed.

The only Democrat who might possibly join this effort is Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. But Bush will not press him to break party discipline if his help is unnecessary.

Meanwhile, Paul Mirengoff, blogger at PowerLine talking about frustration over the filibuster:

However, we should keep in mind that Senators to some extent are free agents. One doesn't control easily (if at all) a John McCain, a Chuck Hagel, an Arlen Specter, or a less formidable personality who represents a very liberal state. If Novak is correct, it means that the leadership has the likes of Hagel, Specter, and Susan Collins in its camp on a vote to fundamentally alter the Senate's rules in order to confirm some pretty conservative nominees. That's no small accomplishment. If Novak is wrong, and Frist doesn't yet have the votes, I wouldn't assume that it's his fault.

"They need to know we're behind them�that we'll fight for them as long as they fight for us. The less support we give them the less safe they'll feel fighting on our behalf."

Matt -- If the GOP leadership does not know that we are behind them after increasing their numbers in Congress in 2002 and 2004, what is it going to take for them to know? More money? Our hard work in the campaigns the past 4 years and the overwhelming victories at the polls were not enough? Only money talks? I don't intend on going broke because they have confidence problems. The silent majority gave them the only votes of confidence they should have needed on election days in 2002 and 2004. They campaigned on their issues and we voted them into office on those issues. Now they are unsure if they should go forward pushing those issues, because we haven't given them enough money? That's ridiculous. Unless that is how politics works. In which case, it is pathetic.

And the whole "...less support....less safe they'll feel..." is completely backwards. The reason we are not giving them our support is because they haven't been fighting on our behalf. It is not like they have been fighting for us all this time on the issues and we withdrew support because we didn't agree with them. They haven't been fighting, so we are withdrawing support to get them to change their actions and start fighting. I don't see the logic in giving money and votes to support someone, then that someone doesn't act on the platform on which they ran, so then we are supposed to give them more money in addition to the previous money and votes to make them finally act? That's a scam if I ever saw one.

If Senator Smith is doing X and the people don't want him to do X, but want him to do Y, you're saying that giving more money will make him change from doing X to doing Y? Why? If I were a Senator doing X and then all of a sudden I had money pouring in from my constituents, it would tell me that I am doing what they want. But that is not the case. On the other hand, were I a Senator doing X, and then saw that my constituents were withholding money, it would tell me that they were not happy with what I was doing and I should change my actions.

It is improbable that the republicans would become so bad as to warrant putting democrats in their places in positions of power.

But the repubs have to understand that they have to adhere to their core values at the least. I know it is very difficult to reduce federal spending at a time like this... But what about immigration? What about Social Security? What about the Judicial Nominees? Lets take them one by one.

Immigrations : No Progress. In fact, we have gone backward. It is only because of the MMP that it has been proven that this issue CAN be solved. The Repubs and Pres. Bush have taken no steps to stop this... and rather pandered to the mexican and hispanic crowd. Allowing illegal aliens to come into this country is perhaps the biggest security risk we face yet. It goes without saying that it reduces the value and legitimacy of the real immigrants... the hard working people who came here after full process of law.

Social Security : Another massive failure... not of policy but of execution. I fail to understand why Repubs. are having such a hard time explaining to people that having control of their own money is GREAT. That investing in the Stock Market is NOT as risky as it is purported to be. Now there are talks that the private VOLUNTARY accounts might be removed. Are you kidding me? Whats the use of reforming Social Security then? I have faith in Pres. Bush though in this issue... in my heart, i think he will come good on this. This is too important an issue for him to wobble on... perhaps the greatest domestic issue we face.

Judiciary : Need any more be said after all that has already been said. There is no coherent strategy... Repubs. are leaving party lines... Democrats keep hammering away... misinterpreting and deceiving the public... And not a word from the Repubs. Sure.. Hugh Hewitt generally has someone from the Repubs on his show. But do i see the same hammering from the Repubs? NO. They need to get their message across. Their publicizing strategy is pitiful to say the least.

So whats my conclusion? I am disgusted at the Repubs. But not enough to give money to the democrats. I might contribute to individuals who i think still hold the necessary conservative ideals in their heart. But to McCain's campaign? No. All he will get is my vote... which i will give with a hand on my nose.

The Repubs. need to understand that they are the majority party... and act like one. There are 3 main issues. They have 2 years till 2006. Lets see if they learn something. Otherwise i fear it might be too late.

Scar -- why should I throw good money after bad? I'm already getting what I would have gotten with the Democrats -- worse, in fact, because a good many of the Democrats supported allowing debate on the issue. It was our own people in a chamber that we controlled that stabbed us in the back -- one GOP rep referred to those of us supporting the platform as snakes. Why should I support a party that will suppot him?

How is "with holding our funds" going to send a message to the Senate GOP's? That would be like with holding support from our troops because we don't like the way they are fighting the war on terror.

If we don't support the GOP financially (hey that rhymes) then what do you expect is going to happen? We will get run over by the Democrats and then we will be whining and complaining when taxes go up and by then it will be too late to say "I told you so."

Thing people...lets be smart for once. I believe it was the first GOP President that said, "A house divided can not stand" (Abe Lincoln quoting Christ) and if we are divided in our support, the party will collapse and we will not stand when Hillary takes the throne!

We need to continue supporting our candidates AND encourage them (because the fighting is fierce) whenever we can! Let's not be silly and divide ourselves--lets actually unite and be productive in our efforts to win the war against terrorism, against political stupidity and against judicial filibusters.

Scar -- why should I throw good money after bad?

Well, I hope you enjoy your new friends on the left. You won't get to pick what issues you support and don't though, so I hope you're pro-abortion, anti-war, against the defense of America, for higher taxes, and all the other baggage that goes with being one of them. Oh, and see that doorknob on the door you're about to step thru?...

I have little time to humor or cater to those of such weak and transparent constitutions. The way forward is to work with and insist on fixing the party - not bailing out. If you do, then I hope you get what you deserve.

"On the other hand, were I a Senator doing X, and then saw that my constituents were withholding money, it would tell me that they were not happy with what I was doing and I should change my actions."

I agree, Michael! I just got another phone call from the RNC. I reiterated that there will not be another dime from our household coming their way until they convince the GOP leadership in Congress that the electorate is up in arms over their cowardice! The caller said he was not asking for more money, but instead was asking me for my "renewal" for my membership. I explained that I had sent that weeks ago. He said, "well then can we have another $25.00?" I told him he was obviously not listening, and hung up!

Scar, you and Matt can make all the cases you want that we should continue supporting the RNC, but it will not deter many of us who feel betrayed at their lack of action on immigration, judicial appointments, energy bill, etc.! The House did manage a vote on ending the death tax for good, but the Senate? Not much hope here. A few weeks of $$ drought may get the ball rolling again, at which time, my dollars will do the same...in their direction! I am not so vain as to believe my pleas are going unheard, I know of too many others who feel the same, so put your tongue sharpener away.

So, Dag, I suggest that you take your "wisdom" somewhere it is appreciated - Daily Kos, Oliver Willis, you know somewhere like that. They'll absolutely love you.

I'm going to focus on one big issue here: illegal immigration.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, National Security is the #1 issue facing America today. If a party does not have a strong platform on National Security, then that party's representatives have no place being in office in this country.

Now, that said, I think everyone here can agree that illegal immigration is a huge National Security risk. And while President Bush has done a fantastic job of attacking the terrorism problem at its source (the Middle East), I think almost everyone can agree that he is completely wrong on his solution to the problem here at home.

Now some people in this thread have said that we complainers need to get off our butts and go do something about the problems we have with our elected leaders. Well, the Minuteman Project has done just that. And what have they gotten for it? The media (no surprise) is doing nothing but negative coverage of them. Mexico President Vicente Fox has condemned them and even sent Mexican soldiers to guard the border, not against illegal immigrants, but against the Minuteman Project volunteers. And on top of all that, the GOP, including the President of the United States, has called them "vigilantes". So much for getting off our butts and going to do something about things, huh? Instead of going out and making a difference, the Minuteman Project should have just continued to give money to the GOP and hope President Bush got his head out of his ass about illegal immigration one of these days?

The Minuteman Project is one blatant example of a group of people who were fed up with their elected leaders doing nothing to stop a problem in our country. And they have been rewarded with nothing but ridicule by those same elected leaders. I ask you again, should the Minuteman Project have just kept giving money to the GOP to hope they finally did what their constituents wanted?

I guess the answer to that question is it is better to try to change the GOP than to put Democrats in office hoping they would do the job. But the Minuteman Project is a result of those people not being heard or being ignored, or in the case of President Bush's amnesty solution, being spit on by our government, and being called vigilantes to boot. Is this politics?

The people suggesting not giving up on the GOP have said to keep giving because they are better than the Democrats. On illegal immigration, that is not the case. They have said to go out and get active to do something about the problems instead of just complain. On illegal immigration, the Minuteman Project has done just that. President Bush has called them vigilantes and said nothing about the enemy (on this issue) Vicente Fox and the Mexican government. I'm supposed to give more money to a party that does this to its constituents? If the GOP spits on people concerned about illegal immigration, what are they going to do to people who are upset about Judicial Tyranny and Social Security? Well, apparently, nothing as they have been doing for months.

Someone commented on Blogs for Bush that the Senate GOP has been making excuses for years about why they cannot pass their agenda through legislation. First they didn't have enough of a majority. Then they had the majority in 2002, but one big enough. Then they were given a big majority in 2004 and they come back and say they can't push through legislation because they have to think about when they are in the minority.

So basically, it sounds like we are to support a party that will not pass the legislation that we want, but at least they will not pass bad legislation that the Democrats would pass. Wonderful. How inspiring.

But I guess that is the reality that we face. I will not withdraw support and I will not withdraw my vote from the GOP. However, the GOP better hope they get an inspiring figure a la Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush as the nominee in 2008 or we risk people being inspired by other candidates and having a reliving of 1992 and 1996.

One more thing. I really don't understand this backlash against people who are genuinely upset with the lack of action taken by the GOP leaders. Instead of uniting behind a cause to put a nice big spur up the ass of Republicans in the Senate, it sounds like we are being told to shut up and fall in line or go somewhere else. This will hurt the party as well.

This is a very sensitive time for people in the Republican Party right now. As much as it is difficult to hear people complaining, I suggest the veterans of politics be a little less hostile and a little more educational. Pointing out the realities of 1992 and 1996 is a good start. But it would also help to know about successes Americans have had in the past of helping the Republican Party Senators to do their jobs. From that comment saying that the Republican Party has been making excuses since 1992 as for their lack of action, that does not instill a lot of confidence in me that they will eventually turn things around. Especially in light of them saying that they now have to think about the time when they will be in the minority. The danger is that people will be disgusted by the Democrats, will be sick and tired of waiting on the Republicans and will simply vote for a 3rd party Representative who inspires them.

But maybe that is what we need. A split of both the GOP and the DNC and get back to government how our founders intended it. They never intended for there to be only 2 major parties and in fact did not like the party system at all. Maybe this dissention in both Parties is what we need.

Also, let's look at this from another perspective: The Democratic Party.

I share the contempt that most Republicans on this site have for liberals and leftists, especially those who post here with their backwards logic. One of the issues that comes to light a lot is the fact that anyone who is a self-described Democrat is labeled a leftist and liberal because they support a party that is led by Leftists and Liberals. Fair accusation, but not necessarily always the case. There are many Democrats who are fiscally liberal, but socially conservative or some combination thereof that, for some reason, keeps them in the Democratic Party. Maybe they are Joe Lieberman Democrats. Either way, I think most of the advice that is given to people of this political conscience is to rid their party of the liberals and leftists. And how is that done? Wouldn't it make sense to withhold financial contributions from those liberals and leftists in the Party and contribute to those Democrats who more fully represent their values and principles? Would we tell a Lieberman Democrat to just continue giving to the Deans and the Pelosis and the Boxers and the Stabenows and hope they finally change their ways?

Well, this dissent in the GOP is similar. While we don't want a Democrat in office, we want GOP Senators who will stand up for us as Americans and do that which we put them in office to do. So is it bad that we withhold financial support from liberal, weak-kneed GOP Senators who are not doing what they should and instead give to more conservative GOP Senators who will run against them?

The example was given of Arlen Spector over Patrick Leahy. From what I remember, Spector was in a tight race with a more conservative GOP Senator, but pulled out a close win thanks to support from the President and the rest of the GOP. The logic was that Spector's challenger would possibly win the Primary, but lose the general election, thereby putting a Democrat in his spot. Which I agree is bad, however, isn't this the way to get change to happen? Why are we satisfied with simply the status quo? Was it too much of a leap to think that Leahy would pull out a victory over the conservative Spector challenger (Sorry I cannot remember his name), serve his 4 years in the Senate, piss off the state and then be voted out of office 4 years later when the conservative challenger has built up popularity? Looking at Spector's voting record, how different is he really from a Democrat? Isn't he a RINO that we would want out of office?

It just seems to me that we are giving "tenure" status to the GOP Senate. They don't have to have good performance, they just have to be Republicans. I know there are a lot of people who have posted complaining about the tenure status of teachers and the harm that inflicts on our nation's children. Well, why are we giving GOP Senators tenure status, when they can harm the future of the entire nation (Illegal immigration, backing down on Social Security and Judicial Tyranny)?

It is improbable that the republicans would become so bad as to warrant putting democrats in their places in positions of power. [iamcool388]

I wouldn't suggest that putting Democrats back in power is anyone's goal here, BUT that's exactly what happens when you withdraw support.

Well goodie, then you'll have no objection to John McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 [Kay Ryan]

It isn't going to happen...AS LONG AS people like us who are disgusted with him continue to keep the wallet open while supporting Republicans who aren't RINOs like him. If conservatives withdraw support, he WILL be nominated because it will seem more politically strategic. Think about it. If conservatives want a conservative nominee, disengaging makes no sense.

it sounds like we are being told to shut up and fall in line or go somewhere else. [Michael in MI]

No, exactly the opposite, actually. What I say (and I'll assume Matt does as well) is that the thing to do is voice your dissatisfaction loudly and often to political leaders, but not punish the entire party and most important, the entire nation by ensuring Democrats are elected. That's what withdrawing money does, plain and simple. Now if the money's not being sent anyway (which is most definitely what I suspect in most of these cases), I'm sure now isn't when they'll START donating. But to encourage a boycott (that's what it is, in the end) of the RNC, etc. does far more harm than good.

Does anyone know if anyone's running against Frist in 2006 in the primaries? If you want money to talk, that's where the money should go. Or start talking up replacing Frist as Majority Leader, but don't ensure his replacement is Reid by boycotting the RNC.

I totally understand the frustration and share it, BUT we have to be realistic and pragmatic, as distasteful as realism/pragmatism may seem in the short term.
It's also important to remember that our opponents most DEFINITELY don't see the GOP leadership as weak and cowardly; as was said elsewhere, they're getting very well-organized because they think we're ramming conservative policies down our throats (regardless of the facts, yet they are winning that argument). Scaramonga said, "This kind of rhetoric is exactly what the Democrats are hoping for. If I were Howard Dean, I'd be sending you a personally-signed thank you note by special courier." EXACTLY. This is the kind of thing they WANT, just like none of us complained when Nader ran in 2000 or 2004.

A house divided will fall, people, remember that!
BTW - I finally made the decision to restart my contributions just before I saw this. [Virginia]

That's exactly it. Divide and conquer. And yes, I restarted my contributions last night as well.

Well, the Minuteman Project has done just that. And what have they gotten for it? The media (no surprise) is doing nothing but negative coverage of them. Mexico President Vicente Fox has condemned them and even sent Mexican soldiers to guard the border, not against illegal immigrants, but against the Minuteman Project volunteers. And on top of all that, the GOP, including the President of the United States, has called them "vigilantes". So much for getting off our butts and going to do something about things, huh?

If the President put 10,000 new Border Patrol officers on the Mexican border, the MSM would yell at least as loud against it as they do about the Minutemen. And who cares what Vicente Fox has to say? I don't. Perhaps you should look up the definition of vigilante before you rail against it being used. The Minutemen EXACTLY fit the definition of vigilante. And getting off your butts and doing something has absolutely nothing to do with running down to the Mexican border - it has everything to do with getting your voices heard and causing the changes you want to see happen to the party instead of just whining about them on a blog.

And they have been rewarded with nothing but ridicule by those same elected leaders.

Citations, please.

I ask you again, should the Minuteman Project have just kept giving money to the GOP to hope they finally did what their constituents wanted?

One positive aspect of the actions of the Minutemen project is that they DID to something to get their voices heard. Did the politicians act on tightening immigration controls the next day? No. But they are being invited to come to Washington to testify about what they found. That IS getting off your butt and doing something. I have not heard one of the Minutemen say what their political persuasion is, but I'll bet they're mostly conservatives and will continue to support the Republican party. If you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to hear it.

But I guess that is the reality that we face. I will not withdraw support and I will not withdraw my vote from the GOP. However, the GOP better hope they get an inspiring figure a la Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush as the nominee in 2008 or we risk people being inspired by other candidates and having a reliving of 1992 and 1996.

Don't know what cave you've been living in but the last candidate that "inspired" people was probably Kennedy and his inspirational situation was primarily based on his contrast to the beady-eyed Nixon. And he just barely won the election. Reagan inspired no one when he ran. All this nostalgia for Reagan is not the way people thought of him when he ran for office. Bush I? No. Clinton? No.

One more thing. I really don't understand this backlash against people who are genuinely upset with the lack of action taken by the GOP leaders. Instead of uniting behind a cause to put a nice big spur up the ass of Republicans in the Senate, it sounds like we are being told to shut up and fall in line or go somewhere else.

More emotional claptrap. The backlash is not against people who are upset - Hell, I'm upset with our GOP leaders. But cutting off contributions to the party only guarantees the failure of the party. That is cutting your nose off to spite your face. I say yell, squawk, complain, do anything you can think of to try to get the changes you want. But when actions cross over the line to sabotage and destruction of the ability of the party to function, you have become part of the problem that you complain about. If you think the party is weak, do you really think that by weakening it, you are going to solve the problems?

But maybe that is what we need. A split of both the GOP and the DNC and get back to government how our founders intended it. They never intended for there to be only 2 major parties...

Maybe its what you need, a nice European model of coalitions and trade-offs, dealing with the Devil. But not me. And it won't happen. The system is built from the ground up for a two party system. The Winner-take-all electoral system guarantees a two party system. It may or may not be what the founders intended but it is the system we have. We could have had a parliamentary system where there are many parties and coalitions must be formed to gain power, but that is not the system they wrote into the Constitution. The winning party in every election for the foreseeable future will be either a Democrat or Republican. Personally, since the Democrats support all the things I despise, I have no choice but to stay with the Republicans which do support the things in which I believe.

What really amazes me, is the large number of people on this site who are starting to raise the white flag the first time the going gets tough. Put your damn sheets away and get back into the fight.

"The system is built from the ground up for a two party system. The Winner-take-all electoral system guarantees a two party system. It may or may not be what the founders intended but it is the system we have. We could have had a parliamentary system where there are many parties and coalitions must be formed to gain power, but that is not the system they wrote into the Constitution."

According to this, that is exactly the system that was written into the Constitution. The Founders did not want Democracy and never intended for the people to elect the President, but rather for the people to give the government their top choices for President (based on the electoral college) and then the government would choose the nominee whom they thought would be the best President. The Constitutional intent has morphed into the system that we have today, much like the Founders' intent for the Judiciary has morphed into what we have today. Why is it okay to gain back control of our Judiciary, but not gain back control of our government?

While it is probably a naive view of government, my view is that all government officials should be servants of the people and the nation, not servants of their Party. The fact that we have a 2 party government made up of politicians who hold Party loyalty above loyalty to America and Americans tells me that our system of government is broken and needs to be fixed. As I am ignorant to much involving politics and the history of our government, I do not know the way to go about fixing it. I need to educate myself a lot more.

The Founders were wary of the potential for tyranny that majorities could exert in a democratic government, and tried to guard against the exploitation of a minority by a majority in several ways. The role of democratic decision-making was severely limited both by insulating the new government from direct voting and by constitutionally limiting the scope of the government.

In addition, the Founders wanted to guard against the emergence of factions to prevent citizens from viewing their interests as being represented by one group of political candidates rather than another. Especially with regard to the presidency, the system was designed to select the most qualified individual to head the executive branch of government, rather than to select a candidate who represented some citizens more than others.

The Constitution makes no reference to political parties, and the methods of selecting federal officials were designed to prevent them from playing a major role. Modern sources tend to cite party affiliations for all past presidents, but political parties in the modern sense did not assume any importance in presidential elections until 1828, when Andrew Jackson was elected. Candidates for the office came from a political elite, and because of widespread selection of electors by state legislatures, candidates needed to win the support of others in the political elite in order to win the office. Despite the rapid emergence of factions in American government, prior to 1828 parties did not campaign for presidential candidates.

The first six presidents were members of America's political elite, chosen by America's political elite. After a close election for his first term, Jefferson received 162 out of 176 electoral votes to win his second term, in the first election where the vice president was selected from a separate ballot. Madison and Monroe, the fourth and fifth presidents, each won two terms in office with electoral landslides, making the elite nature of the office uncontroversial. Outside of George Washington, Monroe might lay claim to the title of the least partisan of all American presidents. But controversy erupted in the election of 1824, when John Quincy Adams was selected by the House of Representatives to be the nation's sixth president.

This is the telling quote for me as it describes exactly what is going on today: "...the Founders wanted to guard against the emergence of factions to prevent citizens from viewing their interests as being represented by one group of political candidates rather than another."

It is quite obvious that most politicians today represent the interests of only a certain group of citizens rather than the entire nation. This was not the intent of the Founders and shouldn't be the intent of anyone today. Every politician should have the best interests of America, if only having different ways of addressing those interests. Everyone should support Social Security reform, but have different ideas on how to do it. Everyone should have supported the War on Terror and positively suggested ways for the President to go about winning it. Everyone should support open debate on Judicial nominees and having an up-or-down vote on each of them. These are all issues that are in the best interest of Americans. What has happened is we have two parties battling for power, instead of working together in the best interest of the nation. This is wrong and needs to be fixed.

It is completely illogical to blame all Republicans for the actions of DEMOCRATS and few RINOs! Let's find out why Frist isn't doing more or if he is doing the best he can! To heck with the RINOs, let them undermine their party once again. At least we'll know who they are! This blame the whole for the actions of a literal few thing is getting out of hand. I can only imagine that Democrats across the net are bursting with glee at the spectacle being put on in discussions like this one. You don't want to give money? Don't! Why bluster about it? Hoping to inspire others? Brilliant! Focus those energies into defeating those DIRECTLY responsible for the obstruction. In case we've forgotten who the hell that is:

1 The DNC/MSM
2 Those in our party who would undermine us on important votes.

You act like the wolves aren't at the gates, the gates are impermiable, and because the wolves aren't much better than jerks who won't tend to the gate, that it is better to have the wolves in the compound f*cking the place up and roasting us over spickets! Focus!

"If you think the party is weak, do you really think that by weakening it, you are going to solve the problems?"

I will research this history myself, but I would like to know if any of the political experts here have a knowledge of the evolution of government over the past 50 years or so? I ask this, because I believe that the Republicans and conservative movement and power in government came to be, not by sticking with Party status quo, but by pushing a new movement. If I am not mistaken, Democrats back in the day of JFK were much like the Republican Party of today. Many people who are Republicans now were "Scoop Jackson Democrats" in the past. Those who used to be Democrats, why didn't you stay with your party and get it to change? Why didn't you continue to make your voices heard and continue to contribute money to make the party get back to being a party of the people? Does America have old Democrats to blame for leaving their party to the liberals and leftists so now we have a only one party who (mostly) stands for Americans (Republicans) and one party whose sole pursuit is power (Democrats)?

I know there are many former Democrats who read this site. I'd like to know what the difference is between Democrats who left their party to come to the Republicans instead of trying to talk loudly and change the Democrats to what they wanted them to be, and now, with some Republican supporters getting fed up with the GOP and thinking of withholding financial support. Is the only difference that there is not another party to which to go?

I ask this sincerely for my own education, not as a sarcastic jibe at anyone. I would like to know why former Democrats left their party and became supporters of the Republicans instead of staying with their party and getting it to be how they wanted it.

"You act like..."

Keep in mind that some of us have only been involved in politics a short time (for me that would be since 9/11/2001). So this is all a learning process for me. When I have questions about government and express my concerns, I don't expect to get lambasted.

I don't know about others who have expressed concerns, but I know that I am a supporter of principles and values. Before 9/11/2001, I knew in what principles I believes and for what values I stood. I then took a look at politics and realized that the Republicans most represented those values and principles. So I became a Republican supporter. But only because they represent my values and principles. Once they stop representing me, I will stop supporting them.

Did not Ronald Reagan leave the Democrats and become a Republican because the Party became something in which he did not believe? Are there not many former Democrats here who left the Democratic Party because they did not stand for the principles and values in which they believed? Now, when the Republicans are not sticking to the values and principles and issues in which I and others believe, we are called traitors and weak? Explain that to me please.

"It is completely illogical to blame all Republicans for the actions of DEMOCRATS and few RINOs!"

I don't know about anyone else, but I am blaming Republicans for the inactions of Republicans. Democrats have nothing to do with my blame of Republicans. Democrats are being Democrats. And Republicans are letting them get away with it. That is where I am placing blame.

"Let's find out why Frist isn't doing more or if he is doing the best he can!"

I am willing to do that, but I am tired of reading article after article with quotes from Frist and others saying they have votes and they are thinking about the Constitutional Option. There are many supporters of Republicans, from Rush Limbaugh to Mark Levin to the little people like me, who are tired of all the talking and want Frist to pull the trigger instead of just talking about it.

"Once they stop representing me, I will stop supporting them. "

That type of general talk is exactly what I'm getting upset with Michael. Not ALL Republicans are letting you down. MOST of them are on target and trying to fight for what we stand for. All I'm asking for is focus.

"Did not Ronald Reagan leave the Democrats and become a Republican because the Party became something in which he did not believe?"

You seem to be equating the actions of a few spineless Rs to a something like what the Democrats are currently experiencing. It isn't that our party has almost monolithically decided to abandon our troops in time of war.....that's the Democrats....that is the type of behavior that drove Reagan to leave.

"Are there not many former Democrats here who left the Democratic Party because they did not stand for the principles and values in which they believed?"

When you say "did not stand for", remember one can stand idle and one can stand in opposition to and both qualify as "not stand for". See what I'm saying?

"Now, when the Republicans are not sticking to the values and principles and issues in which I and others believe,"

They aren't going the opposite direction and THEY aren't ALL being spineless. Only a few.

" we are called traitors and weak? Explain that to me please."

I'm not calling you a traitor. I understand your frustration. I'm just trying to channel that energy ;)

"I don't know about anyone else, but I am blaming Republicans for the inactions of Republicans. Democrats have nothing to do with my blame of Republicans. Democrats are being Democrats. And Republicans are letting them get away with it. That is where I am placing blame. "

Like I said not ALL of them. Find out which ones and hold them responsible. I'm all for that! Hate to keep repeating myself......Focus.

"Let's find out why Frist isn't doing more or if he is doing the best he can!"

"I am willing to do that, but I am tired of reading article after article with quotes from Frist and others saying they have votes and they are thinking about the Constitutional Option. There are many supporters of Republicans, from Rush Limbaugh to Mark Levin to the little people like me, who are tired of all the talking and want Frist to pull the trigger instead of just talking about it."

Awesome. So let's find out what is within Frist's capability, What he is trying to accomplish, whether or not he can do something differently, and whether he is willing to do it.

"So let's find out what is within Frist's capability, What he is trying to accomplish, whether or not he can do something differently, and whether he is willing to do it."

How about this Valiant Elephant. If Frist has the votes and the Republicans are not going forward with the Constitutional Option, then I say that I can blame ALL Republicans for their inaction, not simply the RINOs who will vote against the rule change. That is what I am talking about when holding all the GOP Senators Responsible.

If this talk we have heard for weeks saying that Frist has the votes and yet they have not done anything about it, then that is inaction by the GOP. The RINOs have nothing to do with it. However, if Frist does not have the votes because of those RINOs, then I will blame the RINOs.

Also, I say again that I have been involved with politics since 9/11/2001. I don't have the perspective and experience with the political process and games that many of you have from being involved since back during JFK and before. I'm looking at politics during a 3+ year spectrum. And as the saying goes "You don't build a reputation on what you are going to do." The Republican Senate, from what I have read and seen, has a bad reputation of not standing up to the Democrats. They don't change that reputation by saying what they may (or may not), might (or might not) will possibly (or possibly not), maybe (or maybe not) do in the future. Unless you have some past record of Republicans standing up to Democrats that I don't know about?

"If Frist has the votes"

How do we know? Who knows besides Frist? Seriously?

"Unless you have some past record of Republicans standing up to Democrats that I don't know about?"

Senate Approves Arctic Drilling

The PBA Ban

There are more, but those two were HUGE fights. Sometimes movement is slow, but it is steady. Realize that we work against a massive DNC directed media on fronts big and small. Our steps our labored and some are quite small and far between. Frustration is inherent. Patience yeilds progress. Allow the momentum to shift the opposite direction if you must, but understand what you are risking.

This is wrong and needs to be fixed.

Sure. Let me know when you find a way.

Those who used to be Democrats, why didn't you stay with your party and get it to change?

At one time years ago, I guess you could have called me a Democrat. I worked on the JFK campaign. I was only 14 years old and I had no idea what the party platform was, but I hated Nixon for what I heard he had done when running for office in CA. I did not contribute to the party in any financial way and did not vote for LBJ (or Goldwater either.) The next time I voted for any candidate it was Jimmy Carter, mainly because of Nixon and Watergate. I was still fairly young and supported the liberal agenda, mostly, I guess, because I hated the Republicans that I had seen (Nixon and Ford.) When Carter lost his nerve over the Iran hostage situation, I simply dropped out of politics completely and never voted again. Nor was I registered to vote or was I registered with either party. I washed my hands of the whole ugly mess. Then George W. Bush stood on a pile of rubble with a megaphone and made a promise - which he as since kept - in spades. I became a Republican. I joined the party. I registered to vote. I worked on the campaigns in 2002 and 2004. I sat down and examined my value system from top to bottom and realized that my values lined up with those of the Republican party. I never really belonged to the Democrat party - just voted for them. Then there was Carter. Then there was Clinton. Then the truth came out about Kennedy. I realized there was no fixing the Democrats - that the way they were, which disgusted me - was because that is the way they wanted to be. I am no Man of La Mancha, so clowns like Bednarik, Perot, and Nader have never been anything to me but sideshows - narcissistic publicity grabbers who know they'll never win public office. That left the Republicans, which just happened to support the same things that I believe. The Democrats sure don't.

When I have questions about government and express my concerns, I don't expect to get lambasted.

It is one thing to discuss problems in the party and suggest solutions. It is quite another to threaten or actually stop support for the party by withholding funds. That will not "teach them a lesson." It will damage the party. Nobody is asking anyone to "toe the line," but we do condemn activities that spread fear, doubt, non-support for the party.

Now, when the Republicans are not sticking to the values and principles and issues in which I and others believe, we are called traitors and weak? Explain that to me please.

You have made your case for how the party and the Republican politicians have let you down; you claim they don't represent your values anymore. Then you say:

Once they stop representing me, I will stop supporting them.

Sounds to me like you're there. In the world of politics, you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. What you are defending and supporting (removal of funding support for the party) is no solution so one must conclude that you intend to be part of the problem. Being called weak is in reaction to the fact that as soon as things get a little dicey, you act like you want to cut and run. And no one's calling you a traitor. If you decide to take actions against the party like withholding the funds necessary to win elections, then you are no longer a Republican in deed or word. That does not make you a traitor. It makes you a Democrat. Or it makes you a drop-out.

There are many supporters of Republicans, from Rush Limbaugh to Mark Levin to the little people like me, who are tired of all the talking and want Frist to pull the trigger instead of just talking about it.

I'll make you a bet. I'll bet you that Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin (to name a few) may criticize, complain and offer suggestions and even demands, but I'll bet they'll never consider holding back their contributions to the Republican party. They know the damage that would do and they are sure that they don't want the Democrats getting the upper hand.

"...but I'll bet they'll never consider holding back their contributions to the Republican party. They know the damage that would do..."

There is a difference between

1) withholding donations in April of 2005 to send a message to the GOP that I am not in support of their inaction and

2) just plain not supporting the platform of the GOP and not voting for them in 2006.

The withholding of financial support I do not see as throwing up a white flag or giving up on the party. I see it as a nice swift kick in the ass or smack upside the head for the GOP to take notice that their constituents are not happy. And if they expect to get money from us in the future, they better start acting on the agenda on which they campaigned, to which we gave plenty of money last year.

I support the platform on which the GOP Senators campaigned. I do not support inaction on that platform.

I support Social Security with Private Acounts. I do not support compromise on Social Security reform without private accounts.

I support the Constitutional Option. I do not support talking about the Constitutional Option and then not using it and caving in to the rants of Democrats.

Michelle Malkin (along with pretty much everyone else) has been ripping the President a new one about Illegal Immigration for years and yet he comes up with the Amnesty program. Michelle should just keep ranting about it and giving the President her financial support even though he goes against what she stands for? How does that make sense?

I do not see the logic of giving my money to people who do not do what they say. The President is one thing, but he will be gone in 2009. I donated money to the President's campaign in 2004, but that was because I believed in him. He inspired me. He inspired me to get involved in politics. Without his courage and integrity, I probably wouldn't have bothered. He inspired me because he showed me he was a man who would do what he said. He stood firm on his beliefs. He's a man of integrity. I don't have that view of any other politician.

As I said before, I put my support behind politicians who represent my principles and values. When the Republicans stop representing me, I stop supporting them. I don't understand how that is an illogical position to hold. Should I continue to support a church which goes against the religion to which it is supposed to adhere? When that one religion decided to ordain a homosexual priest, people stopped supporting that Church and went elsewhere. Same thing here. Until I see action on the agenda for which the Republicans supposedly stand, they do not get my support.

And I do not want to hear that the reason they can't push Social Security reform and can't take action on the Constitutional Option is because they do not have enough money. That is a joke. It doesn't take money to act, it takes courage. Courage cannot be bought. You either have it or you don't. Right now I do not see a party without enough money to put forth their agenda, I see a party without enough courage.

If they act with courage on their agenda between now and 2006, I will reward them with financial backing. But I do not reward cowardice or inaction with my money.

The withholding of financial support I do not see as throwing up a white flag or giving up on the party.

Previously, you mentioned that you're new to politics and that you're still trying to learn about it. Well, that statement shows me you still have a lot to learn. One more time I will tell you that withholding funds will hurt the party. It will weaken their ability to win elections or even to support candidates that you DO think are good. Each point in the battle line you so weaken, is a point where a Democrat gains a seat, an upper hand, and an advantage. So by your naive belief that holding back funds will "send them a message" you actually increase the power of those you profess to oppose - those who support abortion on demand, the euthanization of handicapped people, giving aid and comfort to our enemies and all else they "stand" for.

But I do not reward cowardice or inaction with my money.

But you do reward the other side by your action. You may consider than an unintended consequence, or you may decide that you don't care about that, or you may try to minimize its affect. But that is what you are doing plain and simple.

Michelle should just keep ranting about it and giving the President her financial support even though he goes against what she stands for? How does that make sense?

It makes sense if you take off your blinders. Michelle supports the Republicans for their values, their actions in other areas, and what they stand for. It is normal and inevitable that reasonable people in the Republican party will have differences of opinion or a disagreement on priorities. But they're still Republicans and would NEVER think of going to the dark side. Except, that is, for people like John McCain, Olympia Snowe, and Jim Jeffords.

Now you are faced with a choice, support the party or don't support the party. Those are your choices. Your actions will result in one or the other of these two effects. Sort it out in your own mind, and then do what you think is right. Be prepared to deal with the consequences. Some of them might not be pleasant, but that should have been part of your decision-making process. I recommend you stay with the party and support it. Work from within to affect the changes you want to see. But you have to make the choice for yourself.

Scar -- you've got it dead wrong, dude. Notice my handle -- I am the precinct chair for my precinct, the guy who has given and worked for the party for the last quarter century trying to get conservative principles put into place. We are not getting them, and are being insulted for good measure by the "Republicans" who we worked to elect. More to the point, the Speaker of the Texas House (who claims to support lowering these stealth tax increases on people's homes) put a known opponent of the plan in charge of the committee that deals with tax matters!

We've already had one grassroots revolt here in Texas -- you may be familiar with some of those we put in place, guys like our former governor (I think you may have heard of him) and my Congressman, Tom DeLay. That revolt took giving our money to good candidates, not to a weak state party that did nothing for us. I'll not abandon my principles -- but the party apparatus is not deserving of my support at this time.

Summary so far:

Witholding contributions from RNC is not the way to go simply because it hurts those who it shouldnt. I dont, WONT, support not giving to the party as a whole.

HOWEVER, i will not be supporing McCain. Other senators i can forgive, cuz some of them are from liberal states and dont need to vote for the option if we have enough votes. It makes sense that if we have a majority without them, then to let them vote against it so that they can still retain their senate seats.

But McCain is a different story. There are too many times he's played to the aisles... of the democrats. He votes against us... undermines us... and is another Clinton in the making. He's a democrat.. he just doesnt know it yet.

McCain gets no money from me. I might make individual contributions (I'm a student, so dont expect much.) and if i have some left over, to the party.

But McCain... NEVER.

This is an amazing list of comments, one of the best ever. I got two messsages from it, though they were not spelled out as such.

One is that we absolutely HAVE to start communicating with our representatives. In that vein, I'm going to print up a whole bunch of envelopes so I can send out comments quickly. I'm going to have a pile addressed to Bill Frist, because I think if he gets a pile of mail he will definitely pass on what he has been told. One pile will be for my own state senator, the Republican one. And one a mixture of envelopes addressed to some of the more spineless among us, with the largest number addressed to McCain. Almost as important as complaining when we don't like something is praise and support when a representative does the right thing.

As easy and tempting as it is to just bitch on a blog, they have to have the paper in hand to make a difference.

Secondly, I think we have to start a vigorous grass-roots organization dedicated not to defeating RINOs up for reelection, but to replacing them before the election with stronger candidates. I can pretty much gar-an-TEE that bouncing an incumbent for a newbie once or twice will get the attention of those tempted to waver. And the advantage of a spirited campaign to replace a poor GOP candidate early on is the chance to both get the conservative message out there without having to battle a rabid Democrat and to prove that we mean what we say. And the RNC can be informed, in no uncertain terms, that their failure to help weed out the useless WILL result in, not necessarily starving the committee but replacing it with people who will support the party. Those RNC appointments are not for life, you know.