Skip to main content

Hand grasping at $100 bills
I'm not sure the world needs yet another right-wing Super PAC, but the premise behind this latest one is to be as far-right as possible. You know, a place that props up nutcases that the rest of the party doesn't want to be caught dead with:
Former Rep. Jeff Landry, who lost his bid for reelection last year, will helm a group dubbed Restore Our Republic. The goal of the super PAC, he told POLITICO, is to give conservatives aligned with the GOP’s activist base the same outside support that establishment-side Republicans get from independent expenditure groups.

Assisting Landry in the enterprise is Republican strategist Nachama Soloveichik, a former senior aide to Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and a onetime spokesperson for the conservative Club for Growth.

Actually, it seems the primary goal of the new Super PAC is to be a vehicle for Jeff Landry to remain relevant and/or paid, but that pretty much goes without saying.
Landry, who has been viewed as a possible Louisiana Senate candidate in 2014, said launching Restore Our Republic doesn’t necessarily close other doors for his political future.
This is good news for John McCain liberals. Having a group out there sucking up conservative money and sending it to the least electable candidates is, on balance, a very good thing; in addition to the obvious money-burning attributes, it will also nicely highlight all the crackpots that even the current, very crackpot-friendly Republican Party wants to keep chained to a pipe in the party basement. So go nuts, Landry. Let's see what the "activist base" considers leadership material these days.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Egggggcellent. Should we start a fundraising (5+ / 0-)

    drive? We did pretty good for liberals last year, as I understand it. To the tune of 2-3 million, IIRC.

    On balance, this might turn out equally good returns as well.

  •  This is fantastic (6+ / 0-)

    and a lot of the "base" tea-party money is a one-time donation.  So if between this group and Rove's operation they are splitting the resources and Landry is going to take the activist money and then use it to partially nullify or at least blunt the effect of Rove's money its a double win for us.

    Plus... anything that keeps fostering that crack between the tea-party and the establishment GOP is welcome.  

    Sweet holy mother of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I wish one of those tea-party leaders would just take the step and file for their own party.  That will be a great day.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:49:46 AM PDT

    •  yeah (0+ / 0-)

      I suspect our side has more grifters and political leeches than I know about, but I also suspect that the percentage of political grift is waaaaay higher on the right side of the spectrum, starting at Karl Rove's Crossroads and proceeding, er, downwards.

      Go ahead, strengthen the walls of that bubble, gentlemen.

  •  Electable? Eh. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vatexia, DSPS owl

    Depends on how you define victory and what kind of time-frame you're planning for.  Rrpublicans in 1962 would have been "unelectable" as too right-wing if they pushed the economic  policies of today's Democrats.  The entire existing House of Representatives, both parties, would  have been "unelectable" as right-wing nut jobs at that time.  But by fighting, by refusing to back down, and by immediately moving the goal posts every time they gained a victory, what was a tiny extremist fringe in 1962 defines the American mainstream today.  That wouldn't have happened if they were cowed by the idea of "unelectability".  Now every two years 435 US Reps are elected by swearing fealty to their "unelectable" agenda.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:51:57 AM PDT

  •  Think of a SuperPAC as a product for sale (4+ / 0-)

    in a totally unregulated business category. You do not have to live up to the promises you make, you just advertise any benefit to any market segment.

    Brilliant, really.

    Just collect money from filthy rich demented bigots who dream that America can be "taken back" by fellow oligarchs.

    No one is stopping "Restore Our Republic" from saying anything they want and drawing huge funding but returning no tangible results other than the state of mind that they tried. There are no consequences, just money, money, money.

    This SuperPAC would be better originated and administered by an imaginative entrepreneur than by the true ideologists who ought to know their plan is dead on arrival, it could not even coexist within the rightwing in any election at any level.

    Yes, a legal scam. A lucrative pipe dream.
    Wish I thought of it first.

    Honesty is not a policy. It's a character trait.

    by Says Who on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:54:12 AM PDT

    •  Uh huh, our far right wing includes more than its (0+ / 0-)

      fair share of pure scam artists. Some may not remember the Clinton years when the GOP did its "revolution" and the notable number of freshman "main street" types had a history of questionable "business" practices, felt hindered by regulation and were determined to make the country safe for snake oil dealers. It goes on and maybe even gets worse.

      Politics is a bit like swimming in storm drain overflow, but that party is a bit like swimming in the sewage pond. Even its "cleaner" members seem to pretty quickly be caught out as the muck swimmers. Virginia's Robert F. McDonnell as an example. Nah, nah, that $15,000 payment wasn't for me.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:12:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed. Let them siphon off as much (0+ / 0-)

    as possible. It may also have the affect of making some districts winnable for more liberal Democrats that otherwise would struggle against an entrenched moderate Republican.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:54:40 AM PDT

  •  Because neoliberal Dems have given the plutocracy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dadoodaman

    so much money they just can't find enough loony bins to throw it into.

    What's the point of letting neoliberals into the tent when neoliberalism is burning down the campground?
    Since elections will never change the ownership of government, why does our strategy rely entirely upon them?

    by Words In Action on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:06:10 AM PDT

  •  How about a title change - or a Meme Change: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Overseas

    Instead of "farthest-right conservatives," since we are not talking remotely about people who want to conserve, let's correctly refer to these people as "the radical right."

    New Super PAC promises to support only radical right

    or

    New Super PAC promises to support only most radical of the right wing

    We all understand that freedom isn't free. What Romney and Ryan don't understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it.
    Julian Castro, DNC 4 Sept 2012

    by pixxer on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 07:45:39 AM PDT

  •  Far right (0+ / 0-)

    The problem with this is that it's seemingly always possible for wingnuts to take a position farther to the right than whatever right wing ideologue was last elected. Using this philosophy, the Super Pac will eventually find itself supporting a candidate who calls for public execution of welfare recipients and leaders of pro-choice advocacy groups.

    You will not be punished for your anger. You will be punished by your anger.

    by mstep on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:06:20 AM PDT

  •  May a thousand flowers bloom for them ... (0+ / 0-)

    May Restore Our Republic have a pot at the end of its rainbow filled with candidates. The panel of aspirants featured in the 20-odd Republican primary-period debates would do, although one or two of them were suspiciously non-Right-enough. (Every good PAC needs to oppose as well as support, doesn't it?)

    May ROR lavish donor funds on these aspirants like seed corn in the fields.  May their purer and purist political philosophies be the solid core of conservative thinking, so that we may know them better. May ROR encourage True Believers to be truer and believe more.

    I know - be careful what we wish for. But these outfits are ships of fools who deserve each other and whose appeal will surely narrow as voters are mugged by what they stand for.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:12:28 AM PDT

  •  For only $40,000 a year, I will form a Super Pac (0+ / 0-)

    to promote whatever the person paying me wants me to promote.  I am ready to start promoting when the first check comes in.  I have a lawyer on retainer to assemble all the paperwork.

    Wow, I wish I knew getting back in the workforce was this easy 3 years ago!

    "A weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered." Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by Yo Bubba on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:46:33 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site