Talk:National Republican Senatorial Committee

hill committee
All four hill committee articles had redundant and partly incorrect or misleading information. I have created a hill committee article and removed the material not specific to the individual committees from their respective articles. It's actually arguable whether we need separate articles at all, given how similar all four are in structure and function. RadicalSubversiv E — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 19 September 2004 (UTC)

Name
"Republican National Senatorial Committee" does refer to this entity, correct? They are not two different things? --- RockMFR 00:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such organization. Any reference to that group would be referring to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, but would be incorrect. --789so7isstuffed (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Republican National Senatorial Committee" was an old name.CloseEyeOnDC (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Employment
There is no doubt extending the Bush Tax cuts for two years will help to some degree. It is fact supply made big changes with Pres. Ronald Reagan & Pres. George W. Bush's economical revenues and growth. It definately helped the Economy during their terms in office. However I'm skeptical of this Tax Extension of the Bush rates reducing Un-Employment in 2011 in big numbers or producing major growth. I don't see big business making major capital investments with only a two year window. No business hires extensively and projects investment return in only two years. Republicans need to over ride the hard left to get our Energy Natural Resources into development. Somehow some way this should be priority one for energy development will create the jobs market construction will follow which will lead to major Tax Revenues and America will be back on track to reducing the debt. Green Energy can not do it. How do you see it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.26.201 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above comment and section is off topic for both the article and talk page. I propose speedy deletion.CloseEyeOnDC (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

2014 Mississippi Primary
Why does the section on the 2014 Republican Senate primary keep being deleted and re-inserted? It's far from a NPOV to cite one (and only one) case where the NRSC has "meddled" in a primary. The preceding neutral paragraph, which explains that the group exists to elect and re-elect members of the Senate Republican Conference, is sufficient. Writing about the single case in Mississippi, while not discussing similar primaries in other states, smacks of partisanship. Conservative activists all over the Internet have expressed outrage about the NRSC's role in the Cochran/McDaniel primary, and it is a story worth telling, but why must such a poor and blatantly biased version of the story appear on the NRSC's page?

Maybe someone should instead create a section on the page that details the many occasions on which the NRSC involved itself directly in state primaries. It would look a lot less petty if it were in the company of other examples, and written in an educational, rather than rabidly political, context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpw5x4 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)