New PAC for Republican Moderates

[Ahriman238]

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a potential 2016 presidential contender, plans to announce that he’s starting a Political Action Committee called “American Leadership Now,” according to a Republican source.

The PAC, which will be aimed at supporting Republican candidates who share King’s vision for the party, is a sign the often outspoken congressman may be seriously considering a White House run. King will be traveling the country getting to know other Republicans with the ultimate goal of “making the party stronger,” according to the source.

King will announce the PAC on Monday during a stop in the early-voting-state of New Hampshire -- where the congressman is headlining a fundraising event hosted by Republican State Representatives.

In July, King said he is considering a run for president. Not afraid to break with his own party, King has supported military intervention in Syria, stiffer gun control laws, and the recent budget compromise, and made headlines last December when he lambasted fellow House Republicans for holding up emergency funding legislation for the victims of Hurricane Sandy before the legislation ultimately passed.

The moderate Republican has said he is concerned about his party becoming “too isolationist and extreme,” a swipe at the Tea Party.

King – who hails from liberal Long Island -- would face an uphill battle in a presidential primary in terms of fundraising and exposure with other potential candidates like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., soaking up much of the national media attention right now.

Still King seems to be serious about exploring the options. Monday will mark his 5th trip to New Hampshire this year. If King does decide to make a run for the White House, he would be legally barred from using the money raised by his PAC for his campaign.

I'll just leave this here.

[Borgholio]

Sounds like irony tbh. President King.

[Gaidin]

Irony's not the word I'd use when it comes to a congressman getting tired of the inanities of those groups, even if he is from New York, no matter his name. More like inevitable.

[Thanas]

It is a sad world when Peter King is considered a moderate.

[Borgholio]

Sometimes I feel that American politics are like Comedy Central to the rest of the world. Are things this crazy in Germany, for instance?

[Gaidin]

It is a sad world when Peter King is considered a moderate.

Here's the funny thing. You don't even have to be a moderate to be tired of those groups. You can be fairly conservative. As conservative as King may be. The thing is, King is a legitimate legislator, even if you disagree with half or more of what he says and/or does. Those groups want showboaters who aren't really interested in doing the job. They want people like Ted Cruz that spout not just conservative BS, but hilariously conservative BS and largely bring in the money and not get anything done.

[LaCroix]

Why exactly would he barred from using that money if he runs for president?

[Gaidin]

Why exactly would he barred from using that money if he runs for president?

They have to be independent from the candidates.

[Gandalf]

So presumably when everyone starts their 2016 campaigns the word "moderate" will be the label everyone wants?

This will be done through multiple redefinitions of moderate.

[Zaune]

This will be done through multiple redefinitions of moderate.

Oh, I don't know. Being only moderately insane or moderately racist ("I don't mind them being here but...") still counts by contemporary GOP standards.

Though to be quite honest moderately racist people are the kind of racist I hate the most, because at least the overt N-word slinging type of racist has the balls to come out and say what they mean instead of dressing it up in weasel-words and dodgy rationalisations that don't fool anyone except possibly themselves. But anyway.

[Flagg]

It is a sad world when Peter King is considered a moderate.

No shit. This is a guy who held hearings on whether the Muslim community were all terrorists. But I guess whining (rightly) about not getting storm aid and bitching about Ted Cruz being a grifter makes him a moderate.

[Maraxus]

So presumably when everyone starts their 2016 campaigns the word "moderate" will be the label everyone wants?

Seems unlikely. There's not going to be much daylight between the candidates Peter King is likely to support and the various Republican National committee groups will support. Peter King's "moderate views" are only really possible because he can't really win on anything. Military intervention in Syria, gun control, Sandy Aid, Zadroga, all of these things were either stances on bills that were going to pass, or stances on policies where his opposition really didn't matter. I wouldn't expect to see him support a "moderate" view point if it was a vote where the GOP position is in doubt. When King say that he's going to support "Republican candidates who share my vision for the party," what he really means is "I'm going to support people who can get elected, not like these fucking maniacs who keep costing us the White House."

The Establishment-y House PACs have been supporting more electable candidates for a long time. Sometimes it worked, more often it didn't. They're really going after guys who can mouth off RARA CONSERVATISM, but who are practical in some basic sense. Rubio is like that, where Ted Cruz is not. King and John Boehner want essentially the same thing, so it's not exactly a bold stance for "moderation."

And it probably won't matter, oddly enough. The current crop of possible 2016 GOP candidates are all sprinting hard to the right. They know what to do to win the Presidential nomination. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are both way more popular among conservatives than John Boehner. Nobody knows who the hell Peter King is, so the point is moot for him. And the RNC's efforts to nominate more electable candidates have blown up hilariously in their faces in the past. Remember Christine "I'm not a witch and I just said that on national TV" O'Donnell? Her opponent is what Peter King really wanted to be; a popular and well known incumbent who was conservative and practical and was going to become a Senator. And the GOP supported him to the hilt. And then he lost. A lot of conservatives made a name for themselves by sticking it to the Establishment. That's not likely to change just because Peter King throws around a few hundred thousand dollars, especially not when the Brothers Koch and Sheldon Adelson can toss around 50 million like it's nothing.

Besides, this Presidential run is just a vanity project. No Rep. runs for the Presidency and seriously expects to win. They're all just vanity projects, mostly to raise their profile for later on in life. Kucinich's campaign was certainly like that. He didn't think he could actually win in 2004 and 2008, and if he did he's an idiot. He ran to become more visible for later on in life. Bachmann, McCotter, Kucinich, Dornan, all of these folks who run for the Presidency from the House never have a shot, so King is whatever. He'll have neither impact nor influence and he'll drop out before the end of the primaries.

[Ahriman238]

What we have here is the classic division between Chaotic and Lawful Evil, as I first tried to explain it to my brother. King can be a shithead, but he wants to be king, he wants to work within the system he's willing to compromise sometimes and settle for slightly less than he wanted. Cruz will just burn the whole thing down unless he gets what he wants right now. For the time being, that makes King the one people can deal with.

And have you been paying any attention to american politics for the last 2-3 years? Being willing to engage the other side on any level makes a moderate these days.

[Simon_Jester]

Maraxus, why do you say that the 2016 presidential run is a vanity run for Republicans? I'd think the party would be seriously hoping to replace Obama.

Then again, I can see why realistic Republican strategists wouldn't expect to have much chance of winning. Their basic political strategy of discrediting Obama hasn't really worked, because Obama has failed to do anything as staggeringly unpopular as, say, the war in Iraq. Thus, they're not going to get a repeat of the 2008 election where the Democrats could have basically run a cardboard cutout and still beat McCain.

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are polling so badly among independents that it's a predictable drag on their chances in 2016...

[PKRudeBoy]

Considering the fact that he used to be one of the IRA's biggest supporters in the US I doubt he'd have any chance at the top spot. "If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it." That quote could just be played on a loop with footage of terrorist attacks and he'l be done.

Simon, he said it was a vanity project for Representatives because the only president to be elected directly from the House was Garfield, whereas it can provide a big boost to your career.

[Gandalf]

Considering the fact that he used to be one of the IRA's biggest supporters in the US I doubt he'd have any chance at the top spot. "If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it." That quote could just be played on a loop with footage of terrorist attacks and he'll be done.

But would a Democratic opponent do that?

[Maraxus]

Maraxus, why do you say that the 2016 presidential run is a vanity run for Republicans? I'd think the party would be seriously hoping to replace Obama.

Then again, I can see why realistic Republican strategists wouldn't expect to have much chance of winning. Their basic political strategy of discrediting Obama hasn't really worked, because Obama has failed to do anything as staggeringly unpopular as, say, the war in Iraq. Thus, they're not going to get a repeat of the 2008 election where the Democrats could have basically run a cardboard cutout and still beat McCain.

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans are polling so badly among independents that it's a predictable drag on their chances in 2016...

Oh, of course they are. I'm not saying that all of their candidates are running vanity campaigns; I'm just saying that Peter King is running a vanity campaign. As for the more realistic strategists not expecting to have too much of a chance of winning, I think that's off base too. Christie is a very plausible opponent for even a strong Democrat like Hillary. Polling this far out of the election is next to worthless, but Christie seems to be making all of the right moves that will put him in a position to seriously contest the presidency. I don't think guys like Karl Rove feel down about their 2016 chances at all if Christie were the nominee. And if, God Forbid, Clinton didn't run, there really aren't a whole lot of Dems who would have such a massive out-of-the-starting-gate advantage as her. Say what you will about her politics and storied history, but Clinton is pretty clearly the most immediately electable Dem in the country.

The Dems are supposed to have a built-in advantage as far as the Presidency is concerned because you can get to 270 Electoral Votes much more quickly than a Republican. If the three states Obama won with under 5% of the vote (Florida, Virginia, and Ohio) flipped to the GOP, they'd still be four Electoral Votes short of winning the Presidency. Obama could win in a massive EV landslide and a comparatively small popular vote margin because he held onto stubborn majorities in almost all of the important swing states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) and he never really lost it during the campaign. Whether Christie will be able to cut into the Obama margins among minorities and the somewhat affluent white suburbanites outside of the South remains to be seen. He'd be an obviously better candidate to do so than anyone else.

[Maraxus]

Considering the fact that he used to be one of the IRA's biggest supporters in the US I doubt he'd have any chance at the top spot. "If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the IRA for it." That quote could just be played on a loop with footage of terrorist attacks and he'll be done.

But would a Democratic opponent do that?

Not at all because nobody cares because nobody knows who Peter King is. Something unlikely to change in the near future.