RCCC trying to lose House

[CARLHAYDEN]

In an unprecedented effort, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee committed $200,000 to a Republican primary in Arizona's 8th Congressional District.

Now, they are not supporting an incumbent, as he's retiring.

Its not the case that their candidate is the only reasonable candidate, as two of the other candidates are a respected former state legislator and a former Republican National Committeeman.

In total, there are five candidates in the race, with four of them conservatives.

Naturally, the RCCC is supporting the only liberal in the race (trailing in the last available poll).  While Huffman calls himself a moderate, he is a liberal.

Right now GOP workers are so angry that they have vowed to never send any money to the RCCC again, and if Huffman manages to get the nomination, they will NOT vote for the SOB.

Indeed, all four of the other candidates have voted to support the winner of the primary, unless its Huffman.

If Huffman is nominated, this seat is in the bag for Democrats this year.

Oh, and btw, the Chair of the RCCC is NOT running for reelection (if he were a lot of Republicans here would be sending money to his Democrat opponent).

This is one of the most arrogant and stupid actions I have ever seen.

[agcatter]

Come on Carl.  You're surprised?  The GOP has been making these boneheaded moves for two years now.  Gotta keep those borders open.

[Nym90]

Come on Carl.  You're surprised?  The GOP has been making these boneheaded moves for two years now.  Gotta keep those borders open.

The business interests that have undue influence over the party certainly want them open.

In any event, I'm glad the RCCC has done this from a political standpoint; hopefully we can take this seat.

[Eraserhead]

They are supporting the only "liberal" in the race because he is the only one who has any chance of winning. Graf would be crushed by the Democratic candidate. Check out the new poll on Politicalwire.com.

[nclib]

It's ironic that a "Democrat" is complaining about Republicans trying to lose the House.

Anyway, I agree with Eraserhead that Huffman has a better chance than Graf.

[Deano963]

In an unprecedented effort, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee committed $200,000 to a Republican primary in Arizona's 8th Congressional District.

Now, they are not supporting an incumbent, as he's retiring.

Its not the case that their candidate is the only reasonable candidate, as two of the other candidates are a respected former state legislator and a former Republican National Committeeman.

In total, there are five candidates in the race, with four of them conservatives.

Naturally, the RCCC is supporting the only liberal in the race (trailing in the last available poll).  While Huffman calls himself a moderate, he is a liberal.

Right now GOP workers are so angry that they have vowed to never send any money to the RCCC again, and if Huffman manages to get the nomination, they will NOT vote for the SOB.

Indeed, all four of the other candidates have voted to support the winner of the primary, unless its Huffman.

If Huffman is nominated, this seat is in the bag for Democrats this year.

Oh, and btw, the Chair of the RCCC is NOT running for reelection (if he were a lot of Republicans here would be sending money to his Democrat opponent).

This is one of the most arrogant and stupid actions I have ever seen.

\

From Political Wire:

" Giffords, Graf Headed for Showdown in AZ-8

In Arizona's 8th congressional district, an Arizona Daily Star poll shows former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and Randy Graf (R) comfortably leading their respective primaries, with one week left until the election. The poll shows Giffords up 45.5% to 28.5% over her nearest challenger, and Graf -- a conservative member of the border-patrolling Minutemen -- leading NRCC-endorsed state Rep. Steve Huffman (R) 33% to 24.5%.

In the general election, the poll shows Giffords crushing Graf 45.8% to 24.5%. Huffman would fare a little better as the GOP candidate, the poll shows, but is still behind 42.2% to 38.9%. "

What's that about a Huffman nomination handing the seat to the Democrats???

It's great to see the wingnuts of the repub party forming a circular firing squad and working so hard to get the most arch-conservative candidate they can possibly find nominated in every district. It is making the Democrats' task of taking back the House much easier.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, there are three issues in this case:

First, should the national party intervene in a local primary election?  Irrespective of political party, its generally resented.

Second, should the voters be allowed a choice in candidates or should they be limited to only liberal candidates?

Third, the "polls" cited by some of the resident lefties are highly erroneous.  If Huffman does get the nomination, he will be slaughtered as he is merely a pale imitation of the Democrat candidate, and he is dishonest too boot!

In addition to the Democrat and Republican candidates, there will be a Libertarian and Independent candidates.  If Huffman is nominated they are likely to receive abnormally large votes.

[Sam Spade]

If Graf gets nominated, you can bet that Giffords will play Graf's comments about needing to teach ID and creationism in the schools and Graf will be dead in the water. 

Graf wins, it's Likely D.  If Huffman wins, it's Lean D.  He's not that strong of a candidate either.  Those of us who know the CD know that its simply too RINO, especially with a Republican against a strong candidate like Giffords.

Also folks, this is just one race.  I wouldn't read too much in it beyond AZ-08 implications.

[Eraserhead]

In an unprecedented effort, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee committed $200,000 to a Republican primary in Arizona's 8th Congressional District.

Now, they are not supporting an incumbent, as he's retiring.

Its not the case that their candidate is the only reasonable candidate, as two of the other candidates are a respected former state legislator and a former Republican National Committeeman.

In total, there are five candidates in the race, with four of them conservatives.

Naturally, the RCCC is supporting the only liberal in the race (trailing in the last available poll).  While Huffman calls himself a moderate, he is a liberal.

Right now GOP workers are so angry that they have vowed to never send any money to the RCCC again, and if Huffman manages to get the nomination, they will NOT vote for the SOB.

Indeed, all four of the other candidates have voted to support the winner of the primary, unless its Huffman.

If Huffman is nominated, this seat is in the bag for Democrats this year.

Oh, and btw, the Chair of the RCCC is NOT running for reelection (if he were a lot of Republicans here would be sending money to his Democrat opponent).

This is one of the most arrogant and stupid actions I have ever seen.

\

From Political Wire:

" Giffords, Graf Headed for Showdown in AZ-8

In Arizona's 8th congressional district, an Arizona Daily Star poll shows former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and Randy Graf (R) comfortably leading their respective primaries, with one week left until the election. The poll shows Giffords up 45.5% to 28.5% over her nearest challenger, and Graf -- a conservative member of the border-patrolling Minutemen -- leading NRCC-endorsed state Rep. Steve Huffman (R) 33% to 24.5%.

In the general election, the poll shows Giffords crushing Graf 45.8% to 24.5%. Huffman would fare a little better as the GOP candidate, the poll shows, but is still behind 42.2% to 38.9%. "

What's that about a Huffman nomination handing the seat to the Democrats???

It's great to see the wingnuts of the repub party forming a circular firing squad and working so hard to get the most arch-conservative candidate they can possibly find nominated in every district. It is making the Democrats' task of taking back the House much easier.

Thanks for posting that Dean. I'm lazy.

[Deano963]

First of all Eraserhead - you're welcome.

If Graf gets nominated, you can bet that Giffords will play Graf's comments about needing to teach ID and creationism in the schools and Graf will be dead in the water. 

Graf wins, it's Likely D.  If Huffman wins, it's Lean D.  He's not that strong of a candidate either.  Those of us who know the CD know that its simply too RINO, especially with a Republican against a strong candidate like Giffords.

Also folks, this is just one race.  I wouldn't read too much in it beyond AZ-08 implications.

Actually Sam, you would have a point, except that this (Republicans nominating extreme right-wing ideologues who make extremely weak general election candidates) is happening in A LOT of places outside of AZ-08.

In the MI-07 republican primary, moderate incumbent Joe Schwarz lost to a Club For Growth-backed far-right ideologue who attacked Schwarz for not being pro-life enough and for favoring stem cell research. I guess there is no room in the repub party for someone who uses the "safe, legal, and rare" position on abortion and who favors life-saving research.

In the race for the republican nomination for the Ohio governor's race, the republicans nomianted by far the weakest candidate of the three candidates, SoS Ken Blackwell, a man who constantly panders to the extreme religious right and calls homosexuality a choice and who is aganst abortion even in the case of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at stake. Either Jim Petro or Betty Montgomery, had the republicans nominated them , would not be losing to Ted Strickland by 20 points right now. Alas, Petro and Montgomery didn't bash gays enough or condemn the pro-choicers enough.

In the NY Gov's race, the republicans forced the more moderate candidate out of the race in favor of the arch-conservative candidate who has even LESS of a chance (if that's possible) against Spitzer in the general. Not a very smart move at all in state where as many as SEVEN GOP-held congressional sdeats could flip to the Dems in the face of the overwhelming Spitzer-Clinton victory that is about to all but take out the NY repub party.

In the RI-Sen republican primary, yet another far right-winger in Steve Laffey (who proudly declares himself to be way, way to the right of Ronald Raegan) is better than a 50-50 bet right now to oust liberal republican Senator Lincoln Chaffee, one of the few republicans left in the Senate who is in the mainstream and that I respect. Yes, I know, Laffey is running as an "outsider" and linking Chaffee to Bush - LOL. What a crock of bull - if elected, Laffey would vote with Bush 99% of the time, far more often then Chaffee does. If Laffey wins, the Dems pick up one Senate seat before Election Day even happens.

These are just a few examples. I'm really too tired to look up every instance of this.

This is why I took exception to Carl's title of this thread in the first place.

Instead of "NRCC (not RCCC) trying to lose Hosue", the title should be "NRCC trying to KEEP House". I agree that National party committees on both sides should stay out of primaries, but it is obvious that the NRCC recognizes that Huffman is the only candidate who can keep this seat in GOP hands. National republcians are probably starting to realize that their primary voters are nominating unelectable candidates, so they decided to step in in this case. Agian, not defending their actions (I was incensed when Chuck Schumer did the same thing in the Dem Senate primary in Ohio), just saying that it is logical.

My point is, that despite all of the much-hyperventalated and over-the-top criticism of the Democratic primary voters of Connecticut by republicans for nominating Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, it is actually the republican party that has been taken over by it's extremist wing, not the Democrats, and there is evidence galore to prove it. Ct Dems simply nominated a candidate who was more in step with the state and the country as a whole for that matter on the issue of Iraq. Ned Lamont wants a withdrawl plan, Lieberman supports the "stay-the-course" slogan ("stay-the-course" is not a strategy, it's a slogan) of the republicans. That's where a clear majority of the country is. Republicans, on the other hand, seem more interested in nominating candidates who appeal only to their base and haver no chance of being elected.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The RCCC is absolutely doing the right thing.  They know that Graf is not a good match for a seat that has proudly elected an openly-gay Republican for many years.  Graf is a nutbag that would make the party look bad even if he were elected. 

Graf = automatic Democratic pickup.  At least with Huffman we have a chance.

[Sam Spade]

Dean, you are constraining too many things into one narrow guideline.

"Right-wing ideologues" can win in certain places in certain situations and can't in others.  Some of this has to do with the electoral scenario in play this year.  Same thing goes with "left-wing ideologues."

Let me deal with each issue point-by-point.

In the MI-07 republican primary, moderate incumbent Joe Schwarz lost to a Club For Growth-backed far-right ideologue who attacked Schwarz for not being pro-life enough and for favoring stem cell research. I guess there is no room in the repub party for someone who uses the "safe, legal, and rare" position on abortion and who favors life-saving research.

This is true, though MI-07 does not equal AZ-08.  MI-07 is more Republican, and more importantly, more socially conservative than AZ-08.  Such a "pro-life, anti-stem cell" viewpoint (if people really voted on this issue, and most don't) could work here for a Republican candidate and probably will, since the Democratic candidate is a zero. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps.  Ohio is more socially conservative, though, than you're giving it credit, and Ted Strickland is no flaming liberal on social issues.  Secondly, I would hold that almost any Republican candidate would be doing terribly in Ohio's governor's race regardless of views and this has to do with one thing, Bob Taft.  I also happen to think that positions on these social issues in governor's races are less important than national races.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The massacre that was going to occur in the state of NY this year was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who ran.  Still, I agree with you that in NY, the nomination of a moderate would be better for down-ballot races.

I should, while saying this, point out that Stuart Rothenberg commented recently that the Democrats appear to not be doing too well in their goal of ousting GOP NY Congressional members.  This may change, but he sees them doing much better right now in the Ohio Valley and the PA/CT suburbs, a comment I agree with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your opinion of Laffey is your opinion.  I have no proof how much he would vote with Bush or not.  I also don't know whether voting with Bush 99% of the time makes you a right-wing extremist or whether voting against Bush 99% of the time makes you a left-wing extremist.  I think it is possible such a person could be considered a "mindless follower" or a "mindless opposer", but that would depend on his feelings concerning such matters.  To me, Bush is not the be-all, end-all in measures gauging political opinion or oreintation.  He is pretty much irrelevant in about 2 months anyway (barring another SC justice pick)

Whatever, if he gets the nomination in RI, the Republicans lose regardless of how he would vote with Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In AZ-08, it was logical.  With Chafee, it is logical.  With MI-07, OH-Gov. or NY-Gov., I doubt it would make any difference.  The particular situation in a particular race is the concern here, not a general rule which one must abide to with inflexibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is merely your opinion.  Whilst it may be correct in terms of the national mood of 2006 in terms of Iraq, I would posit that the national mood on this issue is more complicated than you're giving it credit for.  Also, Iraq is but one issue in the myriad of issues that make up political ideology and voter judgment.  Don't forget this.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The RCCC is absolutely doing the right thing.  They know that Graf is not a good match for a seat that has proudly elected an openly-gay Republican for many years.  Graf is a nutbag that would make the party look bad even if he were elected. 

Graf = automatic Democratic pickup.  At least with Huffman we have a chance.

First, why bother having elections if we're merely going to select between tweedledum and tweedledee?

Second, why in the hell would anyone vote for Huffman when they can get the real thing by voting for the Democrat, rather than the second-rate slimely dishonest immitation.?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The RCCC is absolutely doing the right thing.  They know that Graf is not a good match for a seat that has proudly elected an openly-gay Republican for many years.  Graf is a nutbag that would make the party look bad even if he were elected. 

Graf = automatic Democratic pickup.  At least with Huffman we have a chance.

First, why bother having elections if we're merely going to select between tweedledum and tweedledee?

Your opinion. I doubt you liked Kolbe either.

Second, why in the hell would anyone vote for Huffman when they can get the real thing by voting for the Democrat, rather than the second-rate slimely dishonest immitation.?

Gee, that's great logic. "I disagree with both candidates, so I'll vote for the guy I disagree with more just because he's the real thing in being the opposing ideology!"

(I see this type of argument on DU quite frequently for the record, to give an idea of where you are coming from)

The district that elected Kolbe is not a good fit for a far right Republican. It's that simple.

[Deano963]

Dean, you are constraining too many things into one narrow guideline.

"Right-wing ideologues" can win in certain places in certain situations and can't in others.  Some of this has to do with the electoral scenario in play this year.  Same thing goes with "left-wing ideologues."

Let me deal with each issue point-by-point.

This is true, though MI-07 does not equal AZ-08.  MI-07 is more Republican, and more importantly, more socially conservative than AZ-08.  Such a "pro-life, anti-stem cell" viewpoint (if people really voted on this issue, and most don't) could work here for a Republican candidate and probably will, since the Democratic candidate is a zero. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps.  Ohio is more socially conservative, though, than you're giving it credit, and Ted Strickland is no flaming liberal on social issues.  Secondly, I would hold that almost any Republican candidate would be doing terribly in Ohio's governor's race regardless of views and this has to do with one thing, Bob Taft.  I also happen to think that positions on these social issues in governor's races are less important than national races.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The massacre that was going to occur in the state of NY this year was a foregone conclusion, regardless of who ran.  Still, I agree with you that in NY, the nomination of a moderate would be better for down-ballot races.

I should, while saying this, point out that Stuart Rothenberg commented recently that the Democrats appear to not be doing too well in their goal of ousting GOP NY Congressional members.  This may change, but he sees them doing much better right now in the Ohio Valley and the PA/CT suburbs, a comment I agree with.
[quote]

I read that piece by Rothenberg as well. It dosen't take into account Spitzer's and Clinton's national aspirations and how they would be doing themselves huge favors by helping the Democrats pick up those seats. Between the two of them, they will easily spend close to $40 million on their campaigns and GOTV operations targeted at Dems, indies and rebellious republicans. Current polls on individual House races in NY simply cannot account for the higher dem-friendly turnout this will generate accross the state on Election Day. A more moderate candidate for the GOP may have helped solidify republican support around their nominee. That is not the case right now, as the last poll I saw Spitzer attracted nearly 50% of the repub vote.

[Deano963]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In AZ-08, it was logical.  With Chafee, it is logical.  With MI-07, OH-Gov. or NY-Gov., I doubt it would make any difference.  The particular situation in a particular race is the concern here, not a general rule which one must abide to with inflexibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again Sam, not my opinion. Polls clearly show that most Americans think Iraq was a mistake and favor a withdrawl plan that starts THIS year. Democrats nominated a candidate who holds this position. That's not my opinion, but fact. Also, polls clearly show that most Americans are pro-choice and favor stem-cell research. Republicans threw out a candidate for holding these positions. Not my opion, but fact. Obviously more things than Iraq make up someone's political viewpoint, and I never said otherwise. However, in the case of the CT Senate primary, which I used as an example, it was THE issue that most of the voters voted on when they went to the polls.

Again, the larger issue I think you're not getting is the overall image the republicans are creating for themselves given the type of candidate they nominate. Clearly, in the case of MI-07, the strict litmus test of the social conservatives that Schwarz apparently failed is not going to help the party in the long run, even though they can "get away" with the wingnut they nominated in that District. Why do I say this? B/c Schwarz and his strongest supportes are now leaving the party that is why. As this happens more and more (and it already is in large numbers in states like Kansas), the republican party will only be driven further to the right and alienate moderates and independents even more.

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that these are my opinions. I did not think up this scenario on my own. I have read many, many articles, stories, blogs where moderate republicans are leaving the party b/c the party is "more focused on arguing over whether Darwin was right", as the former chair of the Kansass Republican Party put it, who is now running for LG as a democrat.

So yes, the implications of races like AZ-08 and all races for that matter are significant outside of the District itself. I'd say this is especially true if the repubs end up losing the House by one vote or a very slim margin. That's what you shouldn't forget.

[HardRCafé]

In the race for the republican nomination for the Ohio governor's race, the republicans nomianted by far the weakest candidate of the three candidates, SoS Ken Blackwell, a man who constantly panders to the extreme religious right and calls homosexuality a choice and who is aganst abortion even in the case of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at stake. Either Jim Petro or Betty Montgomery, had the republicans nominated them , would not be losing to Ted Strickland by 20 points right now. Alas, Petro and Montgomery didn't bash gays enough or condemn the pro-choicers enough.

In the NY Gov's race, the republicans forced the more moderate candidate out of the race in favor of the arch-conservative candidate who has even LESS of a chance (if that's possible) against Spitzer in the general. Not a very smart move at all in state where as many as SEVEN GOP-held congressional sdeats could flip to the Dems in the face of the overwhelming Spitzer-Clinton victory that is about to all but take out the NY repub party.

You don't know what you're talking about.  Petro polled considerably worse than Blackwell, and Weld polled even worse than Faso.

[Deano963]

That's funny, b/c the polls I saw during the primary showed Petro as more competitive with Strickland than Blackwell. Same thing went for Montgomery.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The RCCC is absolutely doing the right thing.  They know that Graf is not a good match for a seat that has proudly elected an openly-gay Republican for many years.  Graf is a nutbag that would make the party look bad even if he were elected. 

Graf = automatic Democratic pickup.  At least with Huffman we have a chance.

First, why bother having elections if we're merely going to select between tweedledum and tweedledee?

Your opinion. I doubt you liked Kolbe either.

Second, why in the hell would anyone vote for Huffman when they can get the real thing by voting for the Democrat, rather than the second-rate slimely dishonest immitation.?

Gee, that's great logic. "I disagree with both candidates, so I'll vote for the guy I disagree with more just because he's the real thing in being the opposing ideology!"

(I see this type of argument on DU quite frequently for the record, to give an idea of where you are coming from)

The district that elected Kolbe is not a good fit for a far right Republican. It's that simple.

Well, you are consistent (consistently wrong).  I know Jim Kolbe (and his brother) and liked him until he flipped in 1994 on the clinton backed gun ban (he broke his promise to me and many others).

Second, you are really a nut job.  There really is no signficant difference betweeeb Huffman and the likely winner of the Democrat primary except that she is a female and a pretty honest liberal.  Huffman is on the other hand a total slimebag, and a liar.  I'd rather have a honest person with whom I may disagree fifty per cent of the time than a lying slimebag who will vote against me forty nine per cent of the time.

[NewFederalist]

CARLHAYDEN- would you consider voting for a candidate from neither major party in this race?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yes!

The Libertarians have nominated Dave Nolan (he moved here from Colorado)

Perhaps you know him.

[NewFederalist]

Yes!

The Libertarians have nominated Dave Nolan (he moved here from Colorado)

Perhaps you know him.

Yes, I do. He is far more a "purist" than I but he would get my vote if I lived in your district. He would be a stellar Representative but would most likely disappoint you big time with regard to the immigration issue.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yes!

The Libertarians have nominated Dave Nolan (he moved here from Colorado)

Perhaps you know him.

Yes, I do. He is far more a "purist" than I but he would get my vote if I lived in your district. He would be a stellar Representative but would most likely disappoint you big time with regard to the immigration issue.

Yes, Dave is a little impractical, but as he has no chance of being elected, a vote for him would be a vote the Republicans would not get.  If here were able to get more than five per cent of the vote in a high profile race, and if his vote exceeded the difference between the winning and losing candidate, then some people would take notice that the 'natives are restless' and won't take to being ruled by rich east coast slimebags.

BTW, do you know Rich Winger?  I worked with him on a project a quarter of a century ago.

[NewFederalist]

Yes!

The Libertarians have nominated Dave Nolan (he moved here from Colorado)

Perhaps you know him.

Yes, I do. He is far more a "purist" than I but he would get my vote if I lived in your district. He would be a stellar Representative but would most likely disappoint you big time with regard to the immigration issue.

Yes, Dave is a little impractical, but as he has no chance of being elected, a vote for him would be a vote the Republicans would not get.  If here were able to get more than five per cent of the vote in a high profile race, and if his vote exceeded the difference between the winning and losing candidate, then some people would take notice that the 'natives are restless' and won't take to being ruled by rich east coast slimebags.

BTW, do you know Rich Winger?  I worked with him on a project a quarter of a century ago.

Yes. Richard and I have known each other for 25 or 30 years. He is one really plugged in guy when it comes to ballot access! Ross Perot took everything he said to the bank and made it on the ballot everywhere with no problem! I think I have every issue of BAN ever produced. Really good guy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's an editorial from the Arizona Daily Star on the subject:

National GOP has no business in local race
Our view: Its support of Huffman in the primary is a mistake that has backfired
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 09.09.2006

The National Republican Congressional Committee should have stayed out of the GOP primary race in the 8th Congressional District. Its support of candidate Steve Huffman sends the wrong message that national party leaders know better than locals who would be the best candidate for Congress.

The NRCC's move also has harmed local party unity and opened up Huffman to attacks within the Republican Party and from Democrats. If Huffman wins the primary on Tuesday, he will be a wounded contender heading into the general election.

The Republican Party broke its longstanding policy of not taking sides in primary races when it decided in late August to support Huffman with $122,000 in television ads. Not surprisingly, GOP rivals Randy Graf, Mike Hellon, Frank Antenori and Mike Jenkins took umbrage over the national party's meddling.

A poll sponsored by the Arizona Daily Star showed Graf leading the race by 8.5 points over Huffman, 33 percent to 24.5 percent. Hellon was third at 10 percent, with Antenori and Jenkins in the low single digits. The margin of error for the poll was 4.9 percent, with nearly 30 percent of likely Republican voters undecided.

Though Graf has the most reason to be upset by the NRCC's backing of Huffman, it was Hellon, the consummate GOP insider, who was probably the most annoyed.

"Never. Never. Not in 30 years have I seen this kind of interference," said Hellon, a former chairman of the state Republican Party and a longtime GOP loyalist who ran Ronald Reagan's Arizona campaign in 1980. "The RNCC promised that it wouldn't take sides. They didn't consult with any members of the Arizona Republican delegation. They blindsided everyone.

"I'd be less angry if the NRCC had come down on my side, but I would still think that it was improper interference in a primary election."
Ed Patru, an NRCC spokesman, told The Associated Press last week that the party hasn't run ads in support of other candidates in a GOP primary this year. He said it's party policy not to get involved in primary races. So why support Huffman?

"It falls under the category of strategy, and that is not something we discuss publicly," Patru said.

What is apparent is that the Republican Party doesn't believe Graf, a hard-liner compared with the moderate Huffman, would win in the general election. The party is rallying behind Huffman in an attempt to hold a seat it has held for 22 years.

Regardless of how the national party sees the race, its move to support Huffman has already backfired.

Because of the NRCC ads, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee joined the fray by buying ads last weekend attacking Huffman.
The four other Republican candidates, meanwhile, held a press conference Tuesday decrying the NRCC's anointing of Huffman. The Star's Josh Brodesky reported that while the candidates said they will support each other in the general election, none said he would support Huffman if he wins.

The local Republican Party was already somewhat polarized between hard-liners and moderates. The NRCC's move to back Huffman has only widened that chasm.

Huffman's campaign manager, David Stuempfle, said, "We welcome any support that we get, whether it's the NRCC or any other organization. The support shows us that Steve is the best candidate in the race."
But what may be good for Huffman in the short term may be bad for him and the Republicans in the long term.

We believe the NRCC's involvement in the primary will leave the local GOP more fractured. Whoever wins the primary might have to go into the general election without the support of one segment of the party — Huffman without the right wing or Graf without moderates, for example.
If Graf wins, meanwhile, it puts the NRCC in the awkward position of supporting a candidate it tried to sink.

The NRCC whipped up a lot of unnecessary emotion by prematurely joining the District 8 race. These are the community's candidates, after all. National leaders should allow locals to decide the primary winners, then support that politician to the fullest.