Club for Growth Endorses Sen. Smith
The Club for Growth endorsed Republican state Sen. Harri Anne Smith for Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District yesterday saying in its release, “Senator Smith has established a reputation for consistently opposing higher taxes and more government spending in the Alabama Legislature, even if it meant standing alone.”
The Club for Growth supports fiscally conservative candidates and is one of the major players among 527 groups. For example, in the 2004 election cycle, a presidential election year, they spent almost $12 million. In the 2006 election cycle, they were fourth among 527 groups nationally in money raised, and spent over $8 million.
Their release also takes a swipe at Republican state Rep. Jay Love, an opposing primary candidate.
The other candidate with a voting record presents a starkly different picture. Jay Love has voted for multiple tax increases as a state representative, including the massive tax hike in 2003. In 2005, he supported the governor’s plan to expand the prescription drug program…
Those proposals from the Governor haven’t kept the Governor’s approval rating from soaring to levels that President Bush can only dream about. As I noted recently, Gov. Riley’s approval rating is near 70% according to SurveyUSA. Will be interesting to see if Love opponents can stick on Love a negative that has not stuck on the Governor.
Related Articles:
The picture is becoming clearer by the day. Smith is a real conservative and actual conservative groups recognize that. Love’s record is being scutinized by people who don’t watch his misleading TV ads.
Comment by Anonymous — April 10, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Club for Growth continually attacks republicans and in fact spends money in primary races against them. they would be better served by going after the real tax and sepnd liberals…the democrats. fringe group in my book - and not shocking they jump on the harri anne train. how nice of you danny to run harri anne’s press releases. be fair - not biased.
Comment by GOPer — April 10, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
According to the Wikipedia article on “Republican in Name Only - RINO” the Club for Growth is the number one Anti-RINO group in the country. That may explain the antagonism towards Jay Love, who has been backed by unions and has several votes to raise taxes on his record.
Comment by No RINO — April 10, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
GOPer your reaction to this release is as predictable as the slobbering of Pavlov’s dog . . . face the facts on this one: fringe groups do not spend $12 million in election years. As Danny pointed out , Club for Growth was 4th nationally among 527 groups in the last election cycle.
That is NOT a fringe group - no matter how hard you spin.
Facts are stubborn things, GOPer. I notice you don’t use them much.
Comment by 4th in the nation — April 10, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
I will take exception to calling Danny biased. That is ridiculous. Perhaps GOPer put that in his post out of frustration, but all of us who frequent this blog know that Danny is incredibly balanced and allows everone their say.
And when you accuse Danny of bias, remember that Danny posted the FEC story on Harri Anne at the head of his page.
The bias comment is truly ridiculous. Things like that go to the credibility of the poster.
Comment by Loyal reader — April 10, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
I agree with GOPer that Senator Smith was likely the first to call Danny and make sure he posted this for her. It is typical. Pass the kool aid - the Harri Anne folks are back at their keyboards… Thanks for all you do Governor Riley…even though the Club for Growth thinks you really suck.
Comment by Jboner — April 10, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
That is jusy boneheaded Jboner. Danny runs news items that are newsworthy and he does that for all candidates. There is zero bias on this board. I take offense at your remarks.
Comment by Loyal reader — April 10, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
The post was not biased, but the release was ridiculous. Senator HarriAnne Smith voted for Siegelman’s cell phone tax hike, she voted for taxes against small and large businesses and she voted for property tax hikes. Defend that.
Comment by HarriAnne raises Taxes — April 10, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Club for Growth and Amendment One….Yawn.
Comment by WiregrassVoter — April 10, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Thanks for your input loyal reader. I don’t think that was a slap at Danny but a slap that Smith runs to this site and others asking for her releases to be posted just like the poll she ran and then published numbers that were false on here and others places. Luckily Danny corrected such. I wonder if we will see a follow up report on her FEC violations? I doubt she will run to Danny with that one you suckers!
Comment by boneheaded Jboner — April 10, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
The viscreal reaction from Love’s consultants is not surprising. The real importance here is that a group with real money and influence nationally has taken sides and they have sided with Smith. This means money and other support - in a large way - for her. It’s a big plus for her.
Comment by Anonymous — April 10, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Here’s a little fact (although a lot of posters on here -GOPer - don’t like facts): in 2002 the Club for Growth endorsed 19 candidates in GOP primary contests. 17 of them won. 17 out of 19 in contested races . . .that is a pretty good record. It should inspire confidence in candidates who receive their endorsement.
Comment by Facts=stubborn things — April 10, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
This endorsment was in today’s rollcall and House Race Hotline, of course its appropriate to post it here.
Comment by BlueDog — April 10, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
In 2002 Senator Smith had just voted for higher taxes on businesses and consumers. What a coincidence.
Comment by HarriAnne raises taxes — April 10, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
You are dead-on, bluedog. When someone tries to deny the importance of something undeniably important, you should begin to question their credibility on disputed points. So it should be with the Love apologists.
Comment by Facts=stubborn things — April 10, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
I find it so ammusing that folks think Love, or any other candidate’s consultants, get on this blog to make comments. As another person mentioned earlier, if it was my consultant, I hope they would have better things to do.
Comment by JT — April 10, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
“A bit dog yelps loudest.”
Truer words were never spoken.
Comment by Facts=stubborn things — April 10, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
I will be so glad when this calms down after the primary and Senator Smith and her supporters realize she will stay just where she is…in the Senate where she can vote aginst anything progressive and introduce bills that lead to the blocking of major economic development projects. Sound like “growth” to you? I’ll pass on drinking that kool aid folks.
Comment by Wiregrassvoter — April 10, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
At #8 above - I think you are way wrong. I do not believe Smith has ever voted for a property tax increase. When you make false assertions about that, I think it makes people question all of your assertions.
Comment by at #8 — April 10, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Folks, just realize that the Club for Growth would come out and endorse anyone that would run against Governor Riley as well - and he has been a helluva a Governor. Come to think of it, Harri Anne Smith mouthed off about running against him too….hmmmm. Smart lady, huh? Alabama would have been dead in the water with her.
Comment by ThanksRiley — April 10, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Good grief. Somebody better put Love on suicide watch given the reaction of his people. This is big news for this campaign (which has had little so far) but the way they are overreacting indicates that they are very frightened.
Comment by Dax needs some valium — April 10, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
And for the record (facts again) Club for Growth did NOT endorse any one against Riley. Facts sure get in the way of your arguments.
Comment by Dax needs some valium — April 10, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
That dang Jay Love’s consultants and their free time blasting Harri Anne on a blog forum/post/whatever you call this part. And that dang biased Danny. Gosh he is so solidly in Harri Anne’s corner, you can’t come here for good news. Everytime he posts something that is positive for one person it is seen as bias, but if he posts something negative about that some person people look past it.
Seriously I can’t figure out what goes through people’s minds when they get on here. I can’t tell who has less mental capabilities, some of the people posting on here now or William Boyd when he posted on here.
Comment by William Wyatt Wallace — April 10, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Hey William Wyatt Wallace, I think you actually may have invented the internet rather than Al “Manbearpig” Gore - you show enough intelligence to have done it. Your analysis is pretty much dead center.
This is the single best blog around in terms of being bias-free. When somebody starts complaining about Danny being unfair you know they must truly be desperate.
Comment by WWW has it right — April 10, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Smith is a joke. Anxious to see how the anti-Smith rally goes on April 19. She made her bed now she has to lie in it. I hope this Club group has lots of money. Smith is going to need it to convince the people of the 2nd she is something she is not (which is pro economic development). The only thing she is would be pro Milton McGregor. How much will McGregor help direct to Smith this election cycle. I bet a bunch of strange individual names start showing up on her FEC report that have never given 100.00 or more to Smith in previous campaigns (assuming it shows up and is reported). This will be the Milton spread of cash to holy holy Smith. Lets start calling Smith’s position on Country Crossings what it really is “No One Crossing” Into Houston County to spend their money if she has anything to do with it. Next she will be for moving Ft. Rucker because the helicopters make too much noise which keeps Mr. Watson up at night.
Comment by Justin D. — April 10, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Post #22, you need to read the blog before you mouth off. The comment was, Club for Growth would endorse a candidate against Bob Riley if they had the chance because they hate him over the thought of allowing citizens of this state to vote whether or not they wanted to pay higher property taxes. That is their game - slash and burn. but the post didn’t say the did endorse someone - it says they would if given the chance. Wake up. And once again - anything said against the dear Harri Anne and everyone on here jumps on Jay Love as if he is the only one running against her. Check the candiadtes list people.
Comment by ThanksRiley — April 10, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Wow, everyone is fired up. Settle down. So yes, Harri Anne got endorsed by a certain group…good for her. Prsonally, I don’t care. I am sure other candidates will get endorsements as well. But you guys on here are like vultures ready to pounce. And as I have said, Harri Anne supporters are as bad as any of them in their desire to make her look perfect and trash others. It’s crazy. But good for her…an endorsement. The club for growth will not sway my vote either way, though.
Comment by JT — April 10, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
The concern expressed by the consultants for another candidate on this board shows how important this endorsement is. If it was not important they would not feel such an overwhelming need to get on here and scream that it isn’t important.
Oh - and the attacks on Danny’s objectivity are classless, without base, and stupid.
Comment by Anonymous — April 10, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
>>Club for Growth continually attacks republicans and in fact spends money in primary races against them.
We should do away with primary races. Let the party insiders pick the party candidate? Lotto?
Comment by Onelife — April 10, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Anti-Smith rally on the 19th?
Comment by William Wyatt Wallace — April 10, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
#28 You have posted on her all day long with the same babble. Please say something new or shut up. You are exactly what JT noted when he lumps Harri Anne supporters in a certain category…you are making his point with every post.
Comment by Wiregrassvoter — April 10, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
I do find it amazing that the very first comment that started this chain reaction (post #1) came from someone that took good news about Senator Smith’s endorsement as an opportunity to slam another candidate - in this case, Jay Love. It is a pattern with Smith supporters. If they don’t watch out, they will be seen as perpetual mud slingers and we will end up with Bobby Bright looking like a gentleman and all the republicans bruised and battered. How about you guys let Harri Anne stand on her on two feet, if she can, and let Jay Love and others stand on their two feet, assuming they can, instead of trying to act like anyone but Harri Anne must be a Sith Lord out to destroy district 2. Atleast MH, who I often do not agree with, has better sense when she talks about Smith. Yes, this board is for frank and sometimes heated discussion but some of you guys are whack jobs.
Comment by JT — April 10, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
I will say one thing, not trying to be a Jay Basher, but this does give a little bit of backing to the previous claims of Jay Love being a RINO. I mean a group with a list called “RINO Watch” who takes a swipe at only one candidate in a press release, seems like they are basically calling Jay a Rino.
Comment by William Wyatt Wallace — April 10, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
Club for Growth is known for attacking Republicans in primary races. As was noted on here, if Bob Riley was in this race for Congress, I assure you they would have taken a swipe at him as well. I do think they see Jay Love as her main competition, however, and wanted to fire a shot at him.
Comment by Dbomb — April 10, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
i guess this means smith will not be working to secure any funds for her district or alabama should she become a congresswoman? club for growth is against any earmarks.
Comment by CWS — April 10, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
Bottom line here, with all the venom aside: this is a major first blow struck for Smith. This endorfsement does mean something - it means money and the candidates endorsed by this group in the past have overwhelmingly been winners. And not to bash Love, but Club for Growth took a real swing at him in the endorsement - they attacked his claim of being a tax-cutter directly and called him a RINO right there in the endorsement - so that is negative for him. That will be what remains when the smoke clears on this.
Comment by Let's sum up and move on — April 11, 2008 @ 7:36 am
Comment #32, I think you are more than a bit off base criticizing the first comment for alluding to Jay Love. The post from Danny specifically mentioned Club for Growth’s swipe at Jay. So that was a legitimate reason to comment on Jay in a response to this post.
And please don’t trot out your “Harri Anne’s people are worse” statement you have already made a half-dozen times. Just look at Love’s people on this thread. They are at least as bad, so don’t try to split hairs. You obviously have an agenda also JT.
Comment by Anonymous — April 11, 2008 @ 8:26 am
I don’t have an agenda other than not wanting Bobby Bright to win the seat. And from all the threads I have read over the last month, it is true that the folks supporting Senator Smith sling more mud than anyone on here.
Comment by JT — April 11, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Aside from MH that is.
Comment by JT — April 11, 2008 @ 9:02 am
JT, what is mud? Is pointing out someone’s record and using facts to authenticate it mud? I contend that it is not. Most of what has been said about Jay Love - his votes on Amendment One, his financial suppprt by Public Employee Unions - have been backed up with sources -repeatedly- and easily authenticated.
That is not mudslinging. Mudslinging is making false or half-truth allegations. Almost everything said on this board about Love and his record is true.
I know for a fact that every single thing I have posted about him on here is verifiable fact. And that is why i have cited sources.
I deny that truth is mudsliging. I do not see how you can say that accurate depictions of someone’s proven record (and you can all go to the source material at sos.state.al.us or to the Alabama Legilsative Information Service Online)is mudslinging.
Quite frankly JT you seem to define mudslinging as “stuff I don’t like.” You and Bill Clinton have a similar position - and that is backed up by documented fact, so that isn’t “mudslinging” either.
Comment by Truth is never \”mudslinging\” — April 11, 2008 @ 9:13 am
Some of what is said on here is true and some is false and misleading. There are plenty of facts that can be pointed out on Harri Anne Smith’s record as well as others. Believe me, there is plenty I don’t like about some of the candidates. What i know about Harri Anne Smith I do like, although at times I think she takes positions based on the way the wind blows. But worse, her supporters on this blog are making her seem mean spirited and in attack mode. As stated, I have a concern that the main target and sites should be set on…Bobby Bright. Post #1 started it all - let the endorsement speak for itself and don’t attack someone else - the endorsement did that on its own.
Comment by Pay at the Pump — April 11, 2008 @ 9:39 am
41 was from me - not sure where that pay at the pump came from
Comment by JT — April 11, 2008 @ 9:51 am
CWS in Post 35 makes an interesting point. Does State Senator Harri Anne Smith agree with U.S. Senator John McCain and the Club For Growth and thus she will not work to secure any earmarked funds for her district or State should she be elected? She, nor any other State legislator including Jay Love and David Grimes have any trouble passing out their “community grants” each year. With the Club For Growth endorsement is Smith saying she is against earmarked funds and thus will not secure any if she is elected to the U.S. Congress?
Comment by GreenvilleAdam — April 11, 2008 @ 10:16 am
JT I can tell you I don’t post anything on this board that is not factual. I can’t say that about others, but I am very careful when I post anything on here that makes statements about a legislator’s record. I can cite chapter and verse on anything I post and that has been done by me insofar as the actual record of Jay Love. I will also never assert anything untrue about Harri Anne Smith or David Grimes. I know their records and if you make an accurate attack on them, I will not try to defend them against the truth.
I understand what you say about posts being in “attack mode.” But let’s be clear about this: candidates quite frequently make misleading claims about their records, then scream “mudslinging!” when anyone points out the inconsistencies.
As an example - and this is NOT directed at a candidate, it just makes for an easy illustration: Candidate A runs a series of TV spots talking about how he is sponsoring a major tax cut, and says that people should elect someone like him who is all about cutting taxes. Then Candidate B points out that Candidate A has supported many tax hikes in the past, and that his declaration of himself as a tax-cut candidate is not valid. Then Candidate A tells Candidate B to stop slinging mud - which will allow Candidate A to continue presenting a misleading, one-sided presentation of himself.
That is essentially what we have here. It is very common in politics at every level. But I will tell you that every pol in history would like to have a free pass to create thie own image. In some instances it is a public service to holler “bull” when one of them misleads. That is not mudslinging.
Comment by Truth is never \”mudslinging\” — April 11, 2008 @ 11:42 am
And JT I will go one more then be finished on the subject: the reason a lot of this has been directed at Love is he is the candidate who has been puting out meassges that are at variance with his record. David Grimes voted for a lot of Amendment One too but he has yet to run an ad campaign calling himself a tax-cutter. Any candidate who makes public statements that are not altogether true are putting themselves in harm’s way for truth squads and that goes for everybody in this race.
Comment by Truth is never \”mudslinging\” — April 11, 2008 @ 11:59 am
…..Yawn
Comment by Anonymous — April 11, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
>>With the Club For Growth endorsement is Smith saying she is against earmarked funds and thus will not secure any if she is elected to the U.S. Congress?
One can oppose the current system for doling out money while continuing to use it. It is sheer idiocy to suggest that one cannot use the existing system while attempting to create a better one.
Many Alabamian want a new Constitution. It it hypocritical for them to abide by the current one until a new one is passed?
If a judge want sentencing guidelines to be changed, should he only sentence according to the new guideline he wants instead of the current law?
Comment by Onelife — April 11, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
Club for Growth advocates certain behavor in the existing system. It supports those who operate in the current system in the way that CfG advocates, and it opposes those who do not operate in the existing system in the way that CfG advocates.
Good question: will Harri Anne Smith support the policies that Club for Growth, within the existing system, is advocating?
Club for Growth is not in the habit of supporting people who continue business-as-usual in the current system. If Onelife or anyone else disagrees, how about some specific examples of when this has not been true?
Comment by Stephen — April 11, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
This is an intersting issue. As you know, many members of the U.S. House and Senate (McCain included) take a pledge of no earmarks. The Club for Growth loves and encourages this approach. So, is Senator Smith committing to not try and get any earmarks if she is elected or not?
Comment by Righton! — April 11, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Interesting comments…
Re bias, I want to say what may be obvious to some, that I also would have wanted to post this if the Club for Growth had endorsed any other candidate in the race.
Regarding some other comments, no one connected to the Smith campaign called this to my attention, and no one asked me to run it. If someone from a campaign had brought it to my attention, it would still be interesting (though maybe a little less so, just my nature). Sometimes the interest of a campaign in promoting itself and the interest of race-watchers to know what is going on are overlapping. But it’s not what happened here.
Back to the subject of the post, I think the endorsement itself is less interesting than the money from the Club for Growth that could potentially be dropped into the race for TV ads or what have you. That could be a headache for other candidates.
Comment by Danny — April 11, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
I totally agree with Danny. The endorsement is somewhat meaningless unless their money or other resources (ads) are put forth by the Club for Growth on behalf of the candidate. It is my guess, the Club will not do so in AL 02 as they have bigger fish to fry.
Comment by Politico — April 11, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
To #51 - I am near certain that Club for Growth WILL put money into this race behind Smith. So this endorsement has some throw weight. Besides, if it didn’t have any meaning there wouldn’t be 50+ comments about it on this board.
Comment by Anonymous — April 12, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
You don’t have a clue what you are speaking of “Anonymous”. We will see if Club for Growth puts up any money.
Comment by Politico — April 12, 2008 @ 7:21 pm