How do you read "much of the IE's resources" to the three states as "near everything"?

You may be "reading this story correctly" but since there is no story there beyond the paragraph you quote, people less in tune, like me, cannot see this as you do.

I do agree that it is a good thing that the RNC is having to play such heavy defense. But your headline  seems misleading.

P.S. I also do not how you get "giving up on  . . . Lincoln Chafee" out of this. If Chafee wins the primary, then he is the favorite, no?

Arguably, the Republicans in those races, having not faced primaries, have enough money to win their races without RNC advertising.

Sounds like something the Democrats would do.

Santorum had around 20M to begin, about twice as much as Casey, although now after spending a good chunk of that on ads starting the end of June, he only has a small COH advantage.

The RNC/RSCC really doesn't need to help Santorum although that may change given how much money Rendell both has for himself and can raise for Casey. Rendell's relection is looking increasingly easy meaning he'll have a good bit of money to spread around to the other state Dem candidates.

I'm also questioning the Cantwell race. Rove is supposed to be out this weekend for a fundraiser for Reichart but no mention of a get together with McGavick (unless of course, Rove is just taking McGavick out for a drink later). McGavick's powers to uproot Cantwell certainly haven't showed themselves thus far. Rove makes me nervous when he's quiet.

Johnathan,

(From a comment posted at Digby's)

The president has just casually declared in a WSJ intreview that republicans will retain both houses of Congress after the mid-terms and that they will then phase out Social Security.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/ 2006/sep/09/social_security_to_be_phased _out_in_2007

This is much akin to his early declarations in 2000 and 2004 that he had each election sown up. Later we found out there was serious voter fraud in Florida and Ohio.

It is time to take this statement as a serious threat. The blogsphere must make this interview an issue. How does the president in any rational way think he is going to win, given the overwhelming negative polls against himself and his party, unless of course he knows that he can put his thumb on the scale.

More importantly with all this PR nonsense about the detainees and the show theater military trubinal vote going on, his real number 1 item is to PHASE OUT SOCIAL SECURITY. Is anyone on the republican side runing on this, openly? Is anyone campaigning even talking about this?

We need to make sure that the political ads all point out that the president clearly uses the "war on terror" as a fear-inducing mask for his real agenda, which is so unpopular no one in his party can't even attempt to run on it!!!

Seriously that the president feels his #1 priority is Social Security phase out is something that should be apparent to all Americans. It's not enough that he took your sons and daughter from you he wants your retirement too, and he feels that he has a tight enough lock on his own party to force it through.

I am glad the RNC is giving PA a pass. Casey is a lousy candidate and has so far run a bad campaign. His debate on MTP was atrocious The fact that "man on dog" is so close speaks volumes to yet another DC Dem establishment misjudgement.

Believe me the PA senate race will be a lot closer than we all think. I would not be surprised if Santorum pulls ahead on Nov 7th. The trends are not in Casey's favor.

Frankly this is how I see it:

1. PA: Santorum has been mired in the high 30's/low 40's through the campaign. He hasn't caught up any ground. There is that link that shows that there is a rumor that Casey's internals show that Santorum is within three points. I honestly would wait for more confirmation, though. That poll may be an outlier.

At this point, though, if I were the head of the NRSC, I'd probably cut my losses. Santorum has not made any ground. The dynamics in this race haven't shifted. Maybe in later October, if the numbers tighetened, I would send more money; but, as it stands, I'd pull out.

2. RI: If the poll that showed Laffey ahead by double-digits is correct, with only a few days before the primary, I'd wait and see if Chaffe pulls it out. If he does I'd donate money. If Laffey wins then this seat is gone.

So if I were Dole I would probably then focus my resources on these seats: MO, MT, OH, TN, VA. Those are the Republican seats that I would send money to. Pending the results of the primary, I would then focus on trying to win MN, WA, NJ, and MD (but this depends on whether MFume wins the primary. If Cardin wins the primary then MD loses its ability).

The NRSC, though, is clearly playing defense at this point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/washin gton/10senate.html?hp&ex=1157860800& amp;en=e27866087cd07eea&ei=5094& partner=homepage

Says that the RNC is saying they will concede RI to the Dems if the conservative challenger to Chafee wins the primary.

I agree that the fact that santorum is cripping up on casey, make me nervous.

Hopefully, casey will win.

Kos linked to a Burns ad accusing Tester of being soft on terrorism. It's just the kind of atrocious ad you'd expect from the Republicans, only normally, the RNC would run this kind of ad and the GOP candidate would run warm, fuzzy ads.

Here you have a despicable negative ad, and at the end you see Burns saying, "I'm Conrad Burns, and I approved this message."

If the RNC were planning to spend any money at all on Montana, I don't think Burns would have chosen to pay for an ad like that. It would better suit his purposes to have that kind of ad end with, "Paid for by the Republican National Committee."