Sheehy allies caution that Rosendale’s stopgap ‘no’ vote may portray him as weak on border security.
Republicans Signal Rosendale’s “No” Vote on Spending Bill Could Hurt Senate Run
Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) is facing potential backlash from national Republicans over his expected “no” vote on a short-term spending bill. They believe this could be used against him if he decides to run for Senate next year. Rosendale, a second-term congressman from Montana, has not officially entered the race against Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), but Senate Republicans are preparing for the possibility. Despite appeals from party leadership to stay in the House, Rosendale has privately expressed his intention to run.
If Rosendale does enter the race, he could pose a challenge to the favored candidate, Tim Sheehy, an entrepreneur and former Navy SEAL. Sheehy may have to face a tough primary against Rosendale, who has strong grassroots support and high name recognition in Montana.
Attacks on Rosendale’s Opposition to the Deal
Supporters of Sheehy are already previewing their lines of attack, focusing on Rosendale’s opposition to a deal made by the conservative Freedom Caucus. The deal, which extends government funding for 31 days, includes spending cuts and House Republicans’ border security bill. Rosendale, along with other conservative Republicans, has dismissed the deal as a “ploy” and is calling for the House to work on its annual funding bills instead.
This vote could have consequences beyond the immediate turmoil in the House. National Republicans see it as a vulnerability for Rosendale if he decides to run for Senate. They are framing his opposition to the deal as aligning with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, which they believe will not sit well with Republican voters.
Rosendale’s Stance on Border Security
Rosendale, known for his hawkish stance on border security, has introduced legislation to reimpose the Trump-era policy of “Remain in Mexico” and has called for the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. However, Kevin McLaughlin, a former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, argues that Rosendale’s vote against the spending bill contradicts his record on border security and could be used against him in the future.
Concerns About the Senate Race
National Republicans are deeply concerned about the Senate race in Montana, as it is considered a top target for flipping the seat. If Republicans fail to gain two additional seats, or one if they retake the White House, Democrats will retain control of the Senate. The party leadership believes Sheehy is the best candidate to take on Tester, but they acknowledge Rosendale’s popularity among Montana Republicans. Current polling shows Rosendale leading Sheehy by a significant margin in the primary.
However, the dynamics of the race could change as Sheehy introduces himself to voters. The Club for Growth, which initially signaled support for Rosendale, is now undecided, and the prospect of a Trump endorsement has diminished. Additionally, Democrats, viewing Rosendale as the weaker candidate, are prepared to interfere in the primary race.
Despite the uncertainty, Rosendale has garnered support from prominent conservatives, including former Sen. Jim DeMint. Meanwhile, a PAC with ties to the Democratic Party has begun airing ads critical of Sheehy, a tactic that has previously boosted fringe Republican candidates.
How could Tester and other Democrats potentially exploit Rosendale’s opposition to the spending bill in a Senate race?
T as a potential weakness that could be exploited by Tester and other Democrats in a Senate race. They argue that Rosendale’s opposition to the spending bill could be framed as him being unwilling to work across party lines and find common ground on important issues.
Furthermore, Tester and his allies could argue that Rosendale’s vote against the spending bill shows a lack of concern for the well-being of Montanans. The bill includes funding for important programs and services, such as healthcare and education, that benefit the state. By voting against the bill, Rosendale could be portrayed as putting ideology over the needs of his constituents.
In addition to the potential attacks on his opposition to the spending bill, Rosendale could also face scrutiny over his record in Congress. While he may have a strong base of support among grassroots conservatives, his positions on certain issues may not resonate with the broader electorate. Democrats could highlight any controversial votes or statements made by Rosendale in an effort to paint him as out of touch with Montana values.
Despite the potential challenges and attacks, Rosendale’s decision to run for Senate reflects the growing confidence among Republicans that they can win back the seat currently held by Tester. President Trump won Montana by a significant margin in the 2016 election, and Republicans see an opportunity to build on that support in the upcoming midterms.
However, the outcome of the Senate race in Montana will likely depend on more than just party affiliation and name recognition. Voters will be looking for candidates who can effectively represent their interests and work towards solutions to the issues that matter most to them. In a state as diverse as Montana, where the needs and concerns of urban and rural communities can vary greatly, it will be crucial for candidates to demonstrate an understanding of and ability to address these differences.
As Rosendale considers his potential Senate run and the backlash he may face over his expected “no” vote on the spending bill, he will need to carefully navigate the political landscape and articulate a clear message that resonates with voters. The race against Tester is likely to be highly competitive and will attract significant attention and resources from both national parties. Ultimately, it will be up to the voters of Montana to decide who will represent them in the Senate, weighing the candidates’ records, positions, and visions for the future of the state.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...