Incumbent protection programs among the party committees are nothing new. The DCCC has had one--their very effective Frontline program--for a few cycles now, and it has no doubt played a role in the impressive retention rate for vulnerable Democratic house incumbents (a rate which stands at better than 90%).
The GOP has had a program over the years. At first, it had the rather silly acronym of ROMP. At first, this stood for Retain Our Majority Program. Then it became a second incarnation of ROMP: Regain Our Majority Program.
Well, apparently, even that is no longer feasible. No longer apparently optimistic about regain their majority, the NRCC has changed the name of their incumbent-protection program to...ta-da!!!!...the Patriot Program.
The absurdity of this being the 291,293rd example of the GOP wrapping itself in the flag aside, there is news today on this front. The GOP has finally (its been a while) announced their first class of incumbents that they will be assisting in this program (from Kraushaar at Politico):
- CA 03--Dan Lungren
- CA 44--Ken Calvert
- CA 50--Brian Bilbray
- IL 13--Judy Biggert
- LA 02--Joseph Cao
- MI 11--Thad McCotter
- MN 03--Erik Paulsen
- NJ 07--Leonard Lance
- NY 26--Chris Lee
- WA 08--Dave Reichert
First off, revel in that list for a moment. Had we been standing here on the cusp of the 2004 elections a half-decade ago, would we have been expecting the GOP to name, among their top ten most vulnerable incumbents, names like Dan Lungren, Ken Calvert, and Judy Biggert?
The big story here, from my perspective, are the people who are not on the list.
Michele Bachmann.
Mike Castle.
Jim Gerlach.
Mark Kirk.
Bill Young.
Let's start with Bachmann. It is worth noting that every single Republican on the Patriot list won with a greater margin of victory (in terms of percentage) than did Bachmann, with the sole exception of Ken Calvert. Plus, her 2008 opponent is back, this time with a big fundraising head start. Plus, she still offers as much bulletin-board material as ever. So, one has to wonder aloud, why is Bachmann not on the list? She is at least as vulnerable as a Chris Lee or a Brian Bilbray, isn't she? Is the NRCC...um...a little embarrassed by the brain-mouth disconnect that she seems willing, if not eager, to display to the world?
Castle and Young, in the name of fairness, have no such issue with margins of victory. Both men have won their districts with relative ease for the past several cycles. However, a pair of top-line challenges adjusts the electoral calculus in these districts.
Despite the fact that it is still exceptionally early in the campaign cycle, the DCCC has already landed a pair of heavyweights to take on Castle and Young, with State Senator Charlie Justice leading the way against Bill Young in Florida, and former Lt. Governor John Carney taking the plunge in Delaware.
So, with two powerful challengers already declared, why aren't either Young or Castle on the list? Could the NRCC be tipping its hand about their potential retirement?? After all, Young will be a month shy of his 80th birthday on Election Day 2010, while Castle will be 71. There is still talk that Castle might move on to a Senate race, where he will almost certainly face Beau Biden. But is Castle eager to move to an even deeper Congressional minority for a six-year tour of duty? Perhaps, but it's a little hard to imagine.
Moving up, for what it is worth, is almost certainly the objective of both Gerlach and Kirk, and it is almost certainly why they are not the Patriot Program's first class of incumbents. No other rational explanation is there--both men are in districts that were very hospitable to Barack Obama's message last election (Obama won the IL-10 61-38, and he took the PA-06 by a 58-41 margin), and both men have won very narrow victories over the past few cycles.
Both men have also been rumored to be moving up the ladder, with both states having competitive Senate and gubernatorial primaries next year. The NRSC failing to include them on the first wave seems to be a tacit admission that this is the case.
But...here's the thing on those two. They are both, by Republican standards, moderates within their own caucuses. Or, as the Club for Growth will invariably reference them: RINOs. Thus, realistically, what are their chances of surviving a Republican statewide primary??
I mean, hell, if Arlen Specter felt the need to completely abandon the GOP in the name of avoiding a competitive statewide primary, why do these two think that they will be any more successful?
Here is my suspicion--being in the Congressional minority sucketh a great deal, and these two guys are done with it. Plus, they have evaded defeat a few times now. Both of these guys are reasonably young men. Losing a Senate primary is politically survivable. Losing your House seat as a multi-term incumbent is probably a political obituary in the making. Both have already drawn strong challengers, with more waiting in the wings. Trying to move up the ladder, even if it means an ideological uphill climb in a Republican primary, might be a prudent move.
What is clear, however, is that with four of the five names I listed (Castle, Gerlach, Kirk, and Young), the NRCC does not seem to be terribly confident that they will actually BE incumbents seeking re-election come the Fall of 2010.
And that has to be pretty sweet music to the ears of the Democratic Party.