Will national Republicans try to shape Georgia’s Senate race?

As possible candidates to replace Saxby Chambliss in the U.S. Senate continue to sidle up to the proverbial ring with their proverbial hats aimed at it, take a few minutes to read this story from the New York Times about how national GOP figures are trying to get more involved in recruiting and promoting candidates in Senate races across the country. Here’s the gist of it:

The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate. …

The Conservative Victory Project, which is backed by Karl Rove and his allies who built American Crossroads into the largest Republican super PAC of the 2012 election cycle, will start by intensely vetting prospective contenders for Congressional races to try to weed out candidates who are seen as too flawed to win general elections.

The project is being waged with last year’s Senate contests in mind, particularly the one in Missouri, where Representative Todd Akin’s comment that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy rippled through races across the country. In Indiana, the Republican candidate, Richard E. Mourdock, lost a race after he said that when a woman became pregnant during a rape it was “something God intended.”

The story has sparked reactions on the right ranging from sharp criticism to unimpressed indifference. Some have pointed out that more establishment-type candidates didn’t win winnable Senate races last year in states such as Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin. And of course, Rove’s role in George W. Bush’s presidency comes with unfavorable associations of its own: e.g., the creation of Medicare Part D and higher spending more generally.

The piece mentions no possible candidates in Georgia by name, but it does quote Georgia GOP chair Sue Everhart at the end:

Sue Everhart, the head of the Georgia Republican Party, said she did not object to outside intervention. But because open Senate seats do not come along very often, she said,”we have six congressmen who want the job,” which could create a messy and divisive primary regardless of the efforts to control the race.

“The primary has to sort itself out in Georgia,” Ms. Everhart said. “That’s what primaries are for. But we cannot afford to take our eye off the ball. This is going to be a very important election, and it’s paramount that Georgia keeps its Senate seat in Republican hands.”

You can bet the Georgia name on the tip of every tongue at American Crossroads is that of the only semi-official candidate in the race, Congressman Paul Broun of Athens. Broun famously called evolution and the Big Bang theory “lies straight from the pit of hell” and suggested Barack Obama has more allegiance to the Soviet constitution than the American one. These are exactly the kinds of statements the folks at American Crossroads — and, as far as I can tell, nearly everyone in the state GOP hierarchy — would not like to have attached to the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate next year.

The question in my mind is how much of a backlash outside intervention — directed at Broun or anyone else — would spark among Georgia’s grass-roots GOP activists. I’d say that’s also probably the question on the minds of Georgia Democrats, who probably need a nasty, divisive Republican primary starting this year and lasting next July, and even to an August runoff, to have a strong chance at winning statewide in 2014. (It will get easier for them in 2016, 2018 and certainly by 2020.)

Rather than helping avoid such a fight, outside intervention could virtually guarantee one. My take today is that Georgia’s Republican hierarchy is sufficiently committed to fielding a nominee who’s not dangerously inflammatory that Rove’s group would be wise to take a pass. If it decides otherwise, the next 18 months in Georgia politics could be even more interesting than we thought.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

222 comments Add your comment

Kyle Wingfield

February 5th, 2013
2:42 pm

JDW @ 2:35: The idea that Fan and Fred’s only role in the housing crash related to the loans they held directly would be laughable if it weren’t so terrible.

Kyle Wingfield

February 5th, 2013
2:42 pm

JDW

February 5th, 2013
2:51 pm

@Kyle…”The idea that Fan and Fred’s only role in the housing crash related to the loans they held directly would be laughable if it weren’t so terrible.”

So what other role do you think they played…before you give me the hurah about pushing loans on unqualified low income people you might want to recall that of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 only 1 was even subject to that regulation. You might also want to recall that we had a commisson on this and while they did mention that Fannie and Freddy were highly leveraged they declined to name them as a cause.

They did however mention…

“The Commission also probed the performance of the loans purchased or guaranteed
by Fannie and Freddie. While they generated substantial losses, delinquency
rates for GSE loans were substantially lower than loans securitized by other financial
firms. For example, data compiled by the Commission for a subset of borrowers with
similar credit scores—scores below —show that by the end of , GSE mortgages
were far less likely to be seriously delinquent than were non-GSE securitized
mortgages: . versus ..”

Number 1 on the reason hit parade…

“We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision
proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets.”

Kyle Wingfield

February 5th, 2013
3:06 pm

JDW @ 2:51: Let’s see: Fannie spent more than $100M on lobbying and giving campaign contributions to members of Congress to, among other things, make sure lending standards for the entire industry were constantly loosened. It negotiated lower fees for Countrywide (a solid first on the list at your link) to encourage more subprime lending. Its implicit taxpayer backing played a huge role in the higher-than-justifiable ratings given to its debt — including by S&P, target of a new DOJ lawsuit — and probably in the too-high ratings given to other securities backed by subprime mortgages.

And I hope I don’t have to point out that Fan and Fred sold many of the loans they bought from private banks — which means the number of loans they were stuck holding when the bottom fell out has absolutely no relation to their role in creating the crisis. But I’ll go ahead and point that out, anyway.

JDW

February 5th, 2013
3:22 pm

@Kyle…yep they lobbied…right along with the rest of business and the mortgage industry in particular. They also worked with partners. As for selling…yep…some though they mostly buy its all they do since they can’t originate.

They were a player…point is they were an minor player in a subprime industry that was unsupervised and allowed to run amuck. As the Commission stated…

“We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary
cause. Importantly, GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value
throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses
that were central to the financial crisis.”

The root problem was the failure of the Bush Adminstration to supervise and regulate the market…simple as that.

Kyle Wingfield

February 5th, 2013
3:31 pm

JDW @ 3:22: A simplistic answer for a simplistic view of the world.

JDW

February 5th, 2013
3:38 pm

@Kyle…no not really…just looking at the facts and putting “gubment” is bad bias aside. This conversation started with md, who wants to think that Fannie and Freddy were the root cause…they were not and surely you understand that point.

JDW

February 5th, 2013
3:40 pm

As for what I expect you feel the simple part is…my assignment of blame to Duhbya…I only hold him 40% culpable…but he was the only player that could have reasonably prevented the meltdown and of course was the one that should have.

Kyle Wingfield

February 5th, 2013
3:54 pm

JDW @ 3:38: As the problem started long before Bush became president, I’d say they’re a whole lot closer to the root than he is. (Btw, who is supposed to be the key regulator of Wall Street banks? The president of the NY Fed. I’ll give you one guess who that was in the years leading up to the housing crash. Here’s a hint: It’s the guy widely tipped to be Obama’s choice to head the entire Fed when Bernanke retires.)

The housing crash is the result of the nexus of Big Government AND Big Business, specifically Big Finance. The private sector made mistakes, no doubt, and you won’t find me trying to absolve them of bearing a large part of the blame. But the public sector enabled almost every one of those mistakes, via loose monetary policy, encouraging lax lending standards, establishing an oligopoly of ratings agencies (and then requiring banks to purchase their ratings) and, yes, allowing the GSEs to trade on the full faith and credit of the federal government — among various other actions over the course of 30-odd years. The point is that government and the private sector were fully entwined and fed off each other in the years leading up to the crash.

What’s simplistic is to pretend instead that what happened can fit into neat little categories.

md

February 5th, 2013
4:31 pm

“Yep…my scorecard reads…

Fannie/Freddit…10%
Dems in Congress…10%
Private Mortgage industry…40%
Duhbya…40%”

Yep, I think we can all see where you are coming from…..not a single percentage devoted to individuals. Typical blame everyone BUT the ones that bought more than they knew they could afford……

You are aware that there could be no such thing as a bad derivative without there first being INDIVIDUALS defaulting on their obligations…..aren’t you?

JDW

February 5th, 2013
4:49 pm

@md…”individuals”

Take a glass and fill it with rocks and then pour water in. Just like individuals find the holes in any system, It runs to the bottom and you can’t stop it. The government, in particular the Bush Adminstration was responsible for keeping the water from the bottom of the glass.

JDW

February 5th, 2013
4:59 pm

@Kyle, the crisis did not start before Bush. Some of the enablers may have been put into place but the loose monetary policy coupled with failure of oversight belongs to Bush.

As for regulation…now who is simplistic…there were 8 agencies responsible for regulating the mortgage industry all rolling to the Treasury headed by O’Neil, who was fired in typical Bushie fashion for disagreeing, then Snow, then Paulson. All followed the Bush doctrine of limiting regulations and “freeing” business.

Once a mortgage is packaged and sold it becomes the domain of the SEC…you know the guys who couldn’t catch Madoff in spite of warnings out the wazzooo….see 60 Minutes and Harry Markopoulos.

JDW

February 5th, 2013
5:01 pm

O’ and Kyle…the purpose of Root Cause analysis is to ignore all the noise and find the root cause. There is always one and in this case all lines lead to Duhbya.

Kyle Wingfield

February 5th, 2013
5:07 pm

JDW @ 4:49: “It runs to the bottom and you can’t stop it. The government, in particular the Bush Adminstration was responsible for keeping the water from the bottom of the glass.”

So you fault the Bush administration for not doing something that, in the sentence before, you admitted can’t be done?

Kyle Wingfield

February 5th, 2013
5:08 pm

JDW @ 5:01: “There is always one…”

Like I said, simplistic.

JDW

February 5th, 2013
5:17 pm

@Kyle…”So you fault the Bush administration for not doing something that, in the sentence before, you admitted can’t be done?”

I didn’t say it couldn’t be done…just not with rocks…

JDW

February 5th, 2013
5:19 pm

@Kyle…”Like I said, simplistic.”

Maybe, but I am an Occam’s Razor sort of guy and frankly it works quite well.

Kyle Wingfield

February 5th, 2013
5:22 pm

You’re misusing Occam’s Razor. The simplest answer does not hold up in the face of evidence to the contrary.

JDW

February 5th, 2013
7:28 pm

@kyle…you have presented no evidence to the contrary…on the other hand I have…see 2:51 and 3:22 for the judgement of those entrusted to do so.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

February 5th, 2013
10:10 pm

Just Saying: smaller deficits, rang up less debt, employed more people, had fewer on welfare, and maintained a higher credit rating…Uh, Barry….if your Party actually has all these attributes, why are you not the one in power?
———————-

Parasite Obozo receptacles (oops, triple redundancy) aren’t interested in results–they’re interested in checks.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

February 5th, 2013
10:14 pm

LBB..”Debt as a percentage of GDP is rising under Obozo.”

JDW: Not intended to be a factual statement…which is good since it is a lie.
—————————-

You might try reading the post…I said “debt”. And I was absolutely correct.

JDW: Liar.

[...] It’s a theme that will resonate with a lot of Georgia voters, mind you. But will it be enough of one to move many members of even the state GOP’s very conservative base beyond his past controversial statements? [...]