Thursday, November 09, 2006

More Election Followup
I had meant to post this as an addendum to my previous post, but Tom at BizzyBlog has a great analysis of the election as well, including some great points about Jean Schmidt:
* She won an 11-person special election primary in June 2005 where the Christian Right’s fair-haired voting scofflaw tried to parachute in for a quick victory.
* She survived a nationally-focused special election in August 2005 where her Iraq War vet opponent pretended to be a Bush-supporting Republican on TV while cursing her in personal appearances.
* She survived a challenge in May 2006 from the same voting scofflaw who accepted the help of slash-and-burn artists while pretending to be “dignified” himself.
* And finally, she has survived an opponent who got the help of a gullible (or co-conspiring) newspaper and, I believe, the active assistance of a write-in candidate who (as of this moment) received less than half of votes the non-illustrious David “Mr. 362″ Smith did in 2005 (with 4 times as many votes cast). With their help, she dishonestly played the nuclear NIMBY card in the 2nd District’s easternmost counties. For this reason, and others, Vic Wulsin, and not Jean Schmidt, should be the one wearing the “TLB” tag.
I was fortunately able to vote for Schmidt in her oddly close election this cycle, next time I will be in OH01, however, represented by the Honorable Steve Chabot. As NixGuy puts it:
Chabot showed suprising strength and uncanny political acumen. He let cranley pound on him for weeks on the “changed in DC theme” Then in the last week of the campaign he trots out the house and the old car. Not many other candidates would have had the patience and nerve to withstand that without fighting back, knowing they had a great answer. DeWine certainly didn’t.
We're pretty lucky in this part of Ohio, with Steve Chabot, Jean Schmidt, and John Boehner in such close proximity as legislators. The renewal of the Ohio Republican Party should start here, in districts with real conservatives, the home of Ken Blackwell. The state party needs an absolute overhaul, ridding ourselves of anything Taft, DeWine, Voinovich or their ideological chums bring to the table. There are times I find Hannity palatable to listen to (more often than not, but less often than you might think), and yesterday was one of those days that he was really "on." His advice (or demand, as is his nature) was that Republicans not sulk, hold our heads low, or turn away from our noble goal. Rather, stand up and fight, get mad, understand why and how we lost, and turn it around in 2 years. This is the approach that I am taking. Some columnists, such as LaShawn Barber, are making the argument that Campaign 2008 begins NOW. I certainly do appreciate her zeal and energy, and applaud her decision to jump back into the fray so soon. Personally, and mostly because I did not anticipate Tuesday would go quite so badly, a month out of the game for some soul searching sounds about right for me. I'll still write and comment about various items on the political agenda, and hopefully bring more news to those that read looking for Catholic insight and analysis. In 1996, I left a comment on the USA Today message board regarding the Dole candidacy following the Republican primaries. Only recently it seems to have disappeared from the search engines, but I wrote that for Dole to win, the Republicans would have to unite in the face of adversity and focus on their goals and true values to defeat President Clinton. They did not, and as a result we were rewarded with another 4 years of Democratic policy in the White House.

The time to unite is now. I'd recommend following Barber and Hannity's advice, and if you are feeling motivated, jump back into the fray today. We truly have not a second to spare, and now we have something to run against other than ourselves.

Comments on "More Election Followup"

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (4:44 PM) : 

Lucky to have Jean Schmidt? You are a fool.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (7:11 PM) : 

Question for Chucko. If John McCain ends up with the 2008 nomination, will you support him?

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (9:11 AM) : 

YOU are the fool sir! If you can come up with a good reason not to have Schmidt as the rep from OH02, other than the usual disproven primary tripe and liberal BS, I'd be happy to hear it. Besides, I recently realized I'm in Chabby's district now, so I'll probably be more specific in my commentary on him from here on out.

OK, anonymous post #2 (and I have a stroong suspicion of who you are, heh), if McCain ends up with the 2008 nomination, I'm afraid (nay, terrified) that I would be forced to support him for the same reasons I was forced to support DeWine this year. So, in short, yes. The problem that I have with John McCain is that not unlike Bill Clinton, he is a panderer. From the outset of a McCain administration, we'd be dealing with an attempt to gain instant and lasting legacy. Policy would once again be dictated by polls, and not by principle. McCain has been no friend to conservatives, and only appears to come around when primary season approaches. I have a hard time trusting men that have no moorings, and would fight a McCain primary contest, but would support him once the primaries ended. Now is not the time to trust the country to the party of immaturity.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (8:32 PM) : 

I may be logged in as anonymous, but anonymity is a thing of the past. At least when dealing with a techno wizard such as chucko. As far as McCain goes, I still have the utmost respect for him as a human being, but his views on "coerced interrogation", immigration and campaign finance reform would prohibit me from supporting him in the primaries. However if he did manage to win the nomination I would support him also. I know you like to bash him and the "Gang of 14" for their deal with the Dems, but in the end it got alot of judges on the bench who may never have gotten there. It also preserved the filibuster rules of the Senate. With the Senate now in Democrat hands, in retrospect it seems like a pretty good move.

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (9:42 AM) : 

I only suspect who you are based on your question regarding ole' Johnny MC. I've grown to busy and lazy (is that possible?) to go looking up IPs and domains. :)

I pretty much agree with you about supporting McCain, but I wholeheartedly disagree about the Senate filibuster. The House of Representatives used to have a filibuster, but the wise members of that chamber did away with this petty legislative procedure in the 19th century under the leadership of Thomas Brackett Reed. If you're going to have a filibuster, then have one, but don't just "declare a filibuster" and not be speaking on the floor of the Senate 24/7. If someone calls a filibuster, they should be forced to speak with those who agree until the legislation is broken, or public pressure forces them to quit. Personally, I'm beginning to think the Senate has only nominal value in our republic any longer.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (10:32 PM) : 

The filibuster is still an important rule of the Senate. If not for the threat of a filibuster and the leadership of Bob Dole we may well have been saddled with some version of HillaryCare back in 1993. It is there to protect the minority party. That the Democrats used it to obstruct the appointments of federal judges was unprecdented and unprincipled. The Senate is and will remain an important branch of government and taking it back from the Democrats should be the first order of business.
Since you didn't challenge me on my assertion that the Gang of 14 Compromise had the effect of getting many solid, conservative judges on the bench that otherwise would not be there, I can only assume that you conced the point.
Any feelings on a possible Giuliani run for the nomination.

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (12:33 PM) : 

I think it's a nightmare scenario to have McCain and Giuliani as the Republican frontrunners in 2008. McCain would get my support before Giuliani, as Rudy is an avowed liberal who happens to be fantastically tough on crime and the War on Terror. If it came down to Hillary, who is liberal on all things, and Rudy, who stands as mentioned above I would have to support Rudy. I don't, however, feel he will win the nomination for the obvious reasons. My favorite for 2008 was George Allen... clearly I'll need to find a new favorite candidate. I still need to do some research on Mitt.

You know, if the people vote in HillaryCare, then HillaryCare we should get... it should have been expected prior to the '92 vote, as people knew who Bill Clinton was and how he and his wife governed. Just like now, as the people have voted for weakness in the face of adversity, that is what we deserve. Those of us who understand the fundamental ludicrousness of the situation need to prepare for the worst, so that we can pick up the flag should it fall.

The Gang of 14 opened up an opportunity for weak Republicans to opt out of eliminating a procedure that by its very definition is obstructive to the legislative process. It is a major reason Mike DeWine lost his seat (and a direct reason his son didn't win the primary in his attempt to gain political office). Should the nation not be majority rule, for better or worse?

 

Blogger Chucko said ... (12:34 PM) : 

BTW, I thank you for your thought provoking commentary, but due to spam may be forced to change to a login based system... would your firewall allow for this?

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (6:59 PM) : 

After careful research, the answer is "yes it will"

 

Blogger Jim said ... (8:30 PM) : 

Awright. Everything should be kewl now.

 

post a comment

Go to the source!