Should you be angry at the “Republican Party” about backing Specter before he bailed on us?

Yes.  You cannot with a straight face say the Democratic Party of 2009 is analagous to the Democratic Party of 1999.  The grassroots have done an amazing job of opposing wishy/washy politicians and throughing their support behind quality candidates.  They have also been rationale enough to realize idealogical purity is a pipe dream and push the best possible candidate for the state.  If the party bigwigs push Arlen Specter over a "real" Democrat come primary season, especially if he is unwilling to play ball on EFCA or public health care, then I will stand corrected.

The Republicans should actively work to oust David Vitter.  The party cannot in good faith push his re-election.  If he wins his primary anyway....not their fault.

Didn't blame the GOP on Kemp's death.  He said that if we had focused on Nixon's War-on-Cancer since *1970*, Kemp might be alive today.  Do you disagree that 38 years of investment in cancer research might have helped?  That's not a GOP or Dem thing - both parties have been in power over that time frame, both in the Executive and Legislative branches over that period.

The NRSC was right to have supported Specter. It is a member driven organization that gets the bulk of its money from Republican senators. I don't know Specter's history of giving to the organization since he was elected, but if he had any reasonable history of giving, he should have gotten their backing this year (until he swithed parties, obviously). Giving money in years you don't have a (tough) re-elect to help other members of your caucus should get your support when you have a fight on your hands. If I'm a senator and think there's a chance the NRSC might not have my back when I need their help, they are going to have that much harder of a time getting money from me when I don't need it and they do.

For a group of folks who pretend to know how Washington inside politics are played, there's some serious misunderstandings in this thread.  As Chris wrote: " Just a bit of clarification for those not familiar with the committees in DC and how they work."  I think you're the guy who needs some campaign learnin' about how DC committees work.

Chris argues that the NRSC is first a member retention program.  Further, that it's a membership driven organization. Skeeball offers that the NRSC gets a majority of its $$ from the incumbent Senators and if Specter gave, he deserved endorsement.  Chris compounds the misunderstanding further with "good points, skeeball, tx".

Guys, the NRSC is a political action committee who gets a bulk of it's money from individuals (86% in 08) who ARE NOT members of the Senate.  It gets a lion's share of funds from various other PACs and corporate-organized PACs (see here: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/C00027466/).

Contrary to Chris' assertion, the long standing tradition of the NRSC is NOT to assist incumbent Senators, NOT to engage in contested primary battles.  The time-tested rationale (usually taught in Political Campaigns 101, btw): if an incumbent GOP Senator can't do what is necessary to stay in office, that's their problem --the NRSC is about candidate recruitment, campaign services like polling & GOTV efforts, open seat funding, increasing the majority of GOP Senators.  If a senator can't make the grade as an incumbent, then you can bet the NRSC isn't going to spare scarce resources to "save them".

Second, contrary to the assertions above, Senators aren't the biggest contributors to the NRSC.  In fact, in 2008, all of them combined gave less than $1m (about 0.05%) to the NRSC's tally.  (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/20080609party/6ptysen152008.pdf)  Of those contributions, nearly 80% of them were to pay for services rendered at the request of the invididual Senator for campaign consultancy services in political races the particular Senator had an interest in (like a House race or a local race) or to access/pay for mailing list management services for their own races.

You guys it get wrong when you suggest the NRSC is some kind of membership driven organization.  Members, except at the highest level of giving, have little impact on the actions of the NRSC -and then it's indirect, at best.  There's no "members rights" in this "membership-driven" organization.  The averageJoe contributor to the NRSC are people who share a common concern: they believe their interests would be better served if the Senate were in GOP hands rather than in Democrat hands.  And that usually means they share an ideological fraternity with GOP Senators and fellow contributors to the NRSC.

Can they vote on who the NRSC endorses? No.  Can they direct the Chair to do x, y, or z? No.  Can they withdraw their membership and get a refund? No.  The membership angle is a fiction -a way of making contributors feel like they are a part of some exclusive club.  The only thing the membership usually provides is a flurry of further political solicitations.

Let's stop pretending to appear to know how Washington works if you are clueless.  It only feeds the anger and cynicism that is rampant right now inside and outside the GOP.  To offer, as Chris does, that if we don't like we should call our own Senators and yell about it is both immature and grossly naive.  It's corrosive and untoward what should be Job One: getting back the majority in both chambers, winning important state contests in 2010, and winning back the WH in 2012.  First, there's a 99.9% chance the Senator will never learn of your angry phone call... second, it's about as unproductive and ineffective as joining the Libertarians.

Frankly, I'd expect better intelligence here on something that most political activists FIRST study in Political Campaigns 101.  Membership driven NRSC that protects incumbents?  Right, when pigs fly.  Get it right or keep quiet, eh?