Monday, April 03, 2006

Vanity, Thy Name is McEwen
Apparently, forcing Republicans to run bloody, battle torn primaries is Bob McEwen's forte. Jean Schmidt has been exactly what Ohio and Hamilton County Republicans have needed for a long time: a shot of pure conservativism in the arm with no trail of corruption or scandal. McEwen has decided to challenge Schmidt in a brash showing of self adoration and narcissism. Why Bob, is the lure to power so addictive? Go run for Senate or Governor or just somewhere else generally. We tire of you here, forcing our Party which is in the process of being rebuilt to spend needless cash and take needless hits.

UPDATE (Same Day):
Pergram wanted to know if Boehner was backing Schmidt over former Republican Rep. Bob McEwen in the May 2nd GOP primary election. McEwen left Congress in 1992, shortly after Boehner, who was elected in 1990, joined the House.

Boehner's answer: "Absolutely. She is the incumbent member and I think that she deserves to be re-elected and I think she will be re-elected."

A real battle is underway for the heart and soul of the Ohio Republican Party. We can only hope Blackwell and Schmidt can become symbols of our future hope.

Comments on "Vanity, Thy Name is McEwen"

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12:10 PM) : 

Is it so brash to run when the very people of a district request it, and then want to debate to let those undecided become educated? Apparently Jean seems to think it's time to cut and run... what a coward. Clearly Bob McEwen stands firm as the better candidate

 

Anonymous Andersonian said ... (12:55 PM) : 

Jean Schmidt is a joke in Washington, DC. Do we want a 'shot of pure conservatism' that will get nothing done for our district except allow the democrats to laugh at us?

Republicans are spending their own cash to fund McEwens campaign while Schmidts campaign is getting little help from the NRCC, even though our district is VERY important to the state and the nation.

If you believe all elected officials should not take 'needless' hits, then why should anyone vote in the first place? Representatives work for us, as their namesake entails. We should be allowed to question and replace them if necessary.

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (1:10 PM) : 

I made no mention of Bob McEwen's campaign in the primary as being illegal. That McEwen is getting a lot of support from the Republican establishment is indisputable. My argument is that he will not win the primary, and his run is unecessarily draining funds from Republican coffers. The McEwen situation is similar to that of Paul Hackett... he, not unlike Sherrod Brown, is more palatable to the establishment. I'm going to change the title of my post from Jerk to Vanity, as I feel it defines my position a little more clearly. Thanks for your respectful posts and input.

 

Blogger OH-02 voter said ... (4:11 PM) : 

Hey Chucko,

Reality check:

Schmidt won the 11-way Republican primary with ONLY 30% of the vote. Seventy percent of the Republican primary voters supported SOMEONE OTHER THAN Schmidt!

In the August 2005 General election, Schmidt's margin of victory over the extreme left-wing liberal, Paul Hackett, was an abysmal 4%. By comparison, Portman won the same district with 70% of the vote six times with very little effort.

Schmidt's own poll indicates that 49% of voters are likely to vote for SOMEONE OTHER THAN Schmidt. Her worst problem is that Schmidt's unfavorable ratings were twice as high as McEwen's -- and that's before she was caught lying about endorsements from other Congressmen and a non-profit organization, and was recently caught lying about a college degree for the past sixteen years! Most employees are fired immediately when their employer discovers a bogus degree on their resume. Logically, since that poll was conducted, the gap between Schmidt and McEwen's unfavorable numbers could only have widened.

Schmidt is not, as you posted, "exactly what Ohio and Hamilton County Republicans have needed for a long time." If that were true, then her election and poll numbers would not be so terribly weak and embarrassing to such a Republican stronghold. It's naive to imply that she's not in very, very serious trouble.

If you're having difficulty with the Constitutional right for Americans to run for political office, then perhaps it may be easier for you if you just imagined the 2006 primary as the unofficial run-off to the 2005 primary. McEwen, or anyone else, has the right to test Schmidt's popularity with the voters. No one is "ordained" into political office, not even Jean Schmidt. If she’s as good as you claim, then she shouldn’t fear being tested at the polls.

Each candidate should simply debate the best reasons for the voters to support them and may the best candidate win.

McEwen has taken the lead and clearly laid out his platform and identified his credentials and experience without exaggeration or complete falsehoods. He's offered to debate Schmidt, anytime and anywhere.

Unfortunately, the OH-02 voters have been waiting for Schmidt to do the same -- but all we see/read/hear are more lies, more excuses, more disinformation and cancelled public appearances by Schmidt. That's certainly NOT "exactly what Ohio and Hamilton County Republicans have needed for a long time" in their Congressional Representative.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (4:27 PM) : 

If McEwen knows so much aboutg our needs in this district, why has he lived i DC the last 10 plus years??

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (4:46 PM) : 

OH-02 Voter, you did not read my posts.

"Schmidt won the 11-way Republican primary with ONLY 30% of the vote. Seventy percent of the Republican primary voters supported SOMEONE OTHER THAN Schmidt!"

Yep, and this left her politically weakened, and to her near-defeat at the hands of Hackett. In that primary, I voted for Bob McEwen, because I felt he had the best chance to defeat Dewine. Can you tell me what percentage voted against McEwen? If you'll recall, Hackett ran locally as a centrist Democrat. Nationally, he made some ridiculous far-left statements.

"If you're having difficulty with the Constitutional right for Americans to run for political office..."

What is this referring to? I don't recall making a statement disagreeing with this right.

"..it may be easier for you if you just imagined the 2006 primary as the unofficial run-off to the 2005 primary."

Or perhaps it's easier for you to make this reference to validate a primary challenge.

"It's naive to imply that she's not in very, very serious trouble."

She would not be in serious trouble in her district if resources were not being drained to run a pointless primary campaign.

As I have referenced earlier in this blog, the Ohio Republican establishment must be completely dismantled and reconstucted if we are to continue to compete in this state.

Regarding Schmidt's "lies," the Post has some information:

"Schmidt claimed on her Web site and in a campaign brochure that she has been endorsed by Ohio Congressmen Steve Chabot and Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, both Republicans. Problem is, Chabot and Tancredo say it ain't so.

Schmidt took both names off of her Web site this week after she was called on the error. On Friday, Schmidt also removed the Family Research Council from her list of endorsements.

Schmidt's campaign manager, Allen Freeman, attributed the mistake to a misunderstanding and said the congresswoman wasn't trying to mislead voters. Both Chabot and Tancredo had met with Schmidt and expressed their support, and she walked away from those meetings thinking she had their actual endorsements, Freeman said.

"We were a bit surprised to find out otherwise,'' he said."

Also, regarding the degree:

"The reason for the discrepancy, explained Schmidt's chief of staff Barry Bennett, is that the Miami Township Republican has completed the hours required to earn a second bachelor's degree, but she didn't collect it.

Bennett said Schmidt received a teaching certificate in 1984, after two years of coursework, but never completed the master's degree in secondary education that she was working toward. She has, however, completed enough coursework to qualify for the second bachelor's degree, he said."

Some controversy. You should go work for the congressional Dems with accusations this light.

From OH-02's profile:

"I'm an average person, with an average job, living in an average neighborhood, with an average family. Like most average people, I find offensive blog posters who resort to name calling when someone disagrees with them. This blog is my attempt to resurrect the lost art of constructive debate. Name callers need not post here."

I see a lack of constructive debate in this latest post.

Yet, they have called me naive, out of touch with reality, and accused me of opposing a fundamental Constitutional right. They have implied Jean Schmidt is a liar and a coward. Would George W. Bush, Denny Hastert, John Boehner, and Rob Portman endorse a lying coward?

 

Anonymous Jeff said ... (5:05 PM) : 

Jean Schmidt is without scandal? Where have you been the past year? We could talk about her phony endorsements, lying about Marine Danny Bubp's comments on Iraq, her cowardly "cut and run" from the Anderson Twp debate, and falsifying her resume. Not to mention taking gifts from lobbyists and not reporting them, just like her ally Bob Taft.

http://www.dispatch.com/topstory.php?story=dispatch/2005/07/08/20050708-B1-00.html

With a global biotech company picking up the tab, five state lawmakers and their guests dined at an Italian restaurant and got luxury box seats to the Cincinnati Bengals’ first Monday night football game in 15 years.

The tickets to the Oct. 25 game cost $300 apiece, and the total tab for the evening topped $5,000.

Now, four of those lawmakers — three current Republican House members from the Cincinnati area and a former GOP state representative running for Congress in southwestern Ohio — are facing a state investigation into why they didn’t properly report the entertainment as a gift, as required by Ohio law.

"I have a hard time thinking I wouldn’t remember someone taking me out for a night like that," said Tony W. Bledsoe, the legislative inspector general, who ensures lawmakers and lobbyists follow the laws designed to minimize ethical conflicts.

"Apparently it was a very nice Monday night out in Cincinnati."

Because of a lobbyist’s involvement, the event falls under the state law that forbids lawmakers from accepting gifts from lobbyists valued at more than $75, Bledsoe said.

Reps. Jim Raussen, of Springdale; Diana M. Fessler, of New Carlisle; and Michelle G. Schneider, of Cincinnati, along with former representative Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Loveland who is the heavy favorite to win a seat in Congress from Ohio’s 2 nd District, each should have reported the evening as a gift on their April disclosure forms, Bledsoe said.

The only one to disclose the event was Sen. Jay Hottinger, a Newark Republican who reported that he received Bengals tickets and an autographed football from former quarterback Boomer Esiason.

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (5:15 PM) : 

Huh Jeff, that's the same article that was quoted on DailyKos and many other prominent liberal blogs and sites. From the NYT (which I hate to quote, but here goes):

"Mr. Hackett has tried to tarnish Ms. Schmidt's integrity as well, criticizing her for not disclosing free tickets to a Cincinnati Bengals football game she received from a lobbyist last year. Ms. Schmidt blamed the lobbyist for the oversight, and has repaid him $644."

 

Anonymous Jeff said ... (5:40 PM) : 

Of course any liberal with half a brain can quote an article from the Columbus Dispatch or Cincinnati Enquirer. Jean Schmidt's ethical transgressions make it that easy.

You think that might be one of the reasons Schmidt nearly lost a Safe Republican seat? John Kerry only got 33% of the vote here, yet Schmidt nearly lost the seat to a liberal Democrat with more mental problems than she has. We need to chance it again. Nominate McEwen and he wins this running away.

 

Anonymous Jeff said ... (5:42 PM) : 

That should read, "We don't need to chance it again.

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (5:56 PM) : 

My point was, of course, to point out how those who would like to see Jean lose seem to be of the same mind. I've already addressed the issues put forth so far in the comments.

"Jean Schmidt's ethical transgressions make it that easy... mental problems..."

So is there actually any reason to vote FOR Bob McEwen as opposed to Jean Schmidt, other than insults and wildly overblown "scandals?"

 

Anonymous Jeff said ... (6:45 PM) : 

Good question, thanks for asking. Bob McEwen voted for Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and was a reliable supporter of his agenda. Jean Schmidt was a reliable supporter of Bob Taft's tax hikes and the rest of his failed agenda.

In a race between a Bob Taft Republican and a Ronald Reagan Republican, you don't have to ask me twice where I'll side. If I thought Bob Taft was a great governor, I'd support Schmidt. Instead, I'll go with the Reagan conservative.

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (9:41 PM) : 

In a race between Bob Taft and Ronald Reagan, I think we can all agree on who to vote for. If it's between Jean Schmidt and Bob McEwen, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For the record, here are a few examples of what McEwen's been up to since he... left... Congress.

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (9:47 PM) : 

McEwen on taxes?

 

Blogger BizzyBlog said ... (12:13 PM) : 

Hey OH-02 voter, you're stealing my lines.

I said months ago that about 75% of voters rejected Bob McEwen in last June's primary (last para).

here

If you do the math based on actual results, you'll see that McEwen's reject rate is actually 74.47%, while Schmidt's reject rate, as we're defining it, is 68.63%:

Secy of State results page

Nobody will deny that Schmidt did not run well against Hackett, but I don't think anyone could have anticipated the pretend-Republican TV commercial gambit that he almost pulled off. Bottom line: she won.

Also, not that I think polls are the be-all end-all, but this one today showing Schmidt with a 25-point lead can't be going down well in McEwenland:

Schmidt up 55-30

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (12:19 PM) : 

I'd also say that the anti-Dewine crowd (of which I was a member) voted in a majority for Bob McEwen last year. This makes Jean's victory that much more impressive. Good news on the poll bizzy!

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (12:23 PM) : 

Here's a challenge... can any McEwen supporters say one positive thing about Jean Schmidt? If not, then I think we have a new viral strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome running through the blogs. I'll even start off: Bob McEwen had a pretty darned impressively conservative record during his time in office. I personally feel that his time has passed, and our current incumbent is a better option.

 

post a comment

Go to the source!