Loading ...
Never too early….and this post got me thinking….
I had a real problem in 2006 with a lot of my fellow right wing bloggers who went after Mike DeWine so hard, even to the point of backing his primary opponent. Senator DeWine was never my favorite, but he was certainly better than the alternative; that is how I always looked at it. I have often wondered if some of my friends on the right are so happy they helped to undermine DeWine at the beginning of his campaign. It turned out that in 2006 it might not have mattered - Sherrod Brown was the right person in the right place at the right time and won. It probably didn't. Sounds familiar to what happened last week.
Same feelings about George Voinovich. He is running for a third term, there is little doubt. Voinovich starts out in a better position than DeWine did; he has stature and name ID that DeWine could never achieve. No one knows how the next two years will play out, and it is doubtful the national environment can get any more toxic for Republicans than it was the last two cycles, but Ohio Democrats are still going to be fighting amongst themselves to get the nomination. A strong candidate will emerge to challenge the sitting senator. They smell the blood in the water and will be moving in for the kill very shortly. The DSCC will also make sure Senator Voinovich doesn't get a free pass like he did in 2004.
I hope that Republicans here realize that there isn't anything to be gained by some sort of nasty primary. Voinovich will win beat back any challenger and can only come out damaged if it happens. That is the reality whether you like it or not - Voinovich will be the Republican nominee if he runs. We really can't afford to lose anymore seats in the Senate. Voinovich is not perfect, we all know that. But just like when you compare Mike DeWine to Sherrod Brown, the alternative is far worse. Senator Tim Ryan or Senator Lee Fisher doesn't sound that great to me.
2010 is going to be monumental in Ohio. At least three big races are on the horizon - governor, senator, and secretary of state. Republicans here in Ohio need to get their act together now. Two straight brutal losses are enough. Right?
Minnesota Senate Update: Coleman's lead down to 206 votes over 30 year New York resident Al Franken. The new total includes 32 absentee ballots for Franken that were in someone's trunk.
31 Responses for "2010: Voinovich vs. Someone"
Of course, Franken is the only New York jew in the Senate race that was actually raised in Minnesota.
And Fraken is the only one without a model/actress wife.
Jennifer Brunner should be the OH Dems nominee….not those other dumb names.
Al Franken is evidence that Minnesota should put breathalizers on its voting machines.
So was Ventura
Yes, but Coleman actually lived there and was mayor of St. Paul. Also not quite sure what Coleman's wife has to do with the race or the recount. She wasnt riding around with absentee ballots in her trunk after the election.
Was Obama raised in Illinois? Maybe if that is your basis of backing people for Senate you should have not taken sides in his 2004 Illinois race since neither candidate was from Illinois. I think if you took a look at lot of Senators backgrounds you would find that they weren't raised in the state they represent.
Ben,
It's regrettable that you fall into the same party line that says we have to support ideologically wishy-washy senators like Voinovich for the sake of the party. This is the same faulty logic that kept us with reliably liberal senators like Jacob Javits, Lowell Weiker, and Lincoln Chaffee, who ended up supporting the liberal agenda anyway. Sometimes losing is salutory for the party.
Old Sum - as someone who voted for Weicker in CT, we loved him there - he was very much beloved. Don't be telling people in their own state what you think they need if you don't live there. CT loves its mavericks - except for Lieberman. Not so much right now. But Weicker - he was well-liked and respected by many. If he wasn't what you wanted him to be, well - be glad you didn't have to sweat his elections.
Ben:
Let's hope,then, that Voinovich decides to retire because there are a lot of conservatives who are tired of compromising their principles for the sake of party politics.
Jill, I think you miss the point: There's no justification for blindly supporting these RINOs for the sake of supporting them.
I still havent forgotten the transparent games he played when the immigration bill was being decided. His crack about not caring what his constituents thought because he knew everything that needed to be known was the height of Wasington arrogance. Polls like V. make it hard to give a damn.
Every time I see Voinovich on Nat. TV he's crying…not good
So all of you would rather sit home and bitch because you dont have a Senator who agrees with you on most but not on each on every issue? Democrats, there is one answer as to why you dominate Ohio now.
He'll have my vote. No more Sherrod Browns thank you very much.
Ben you should challenge Betty Sutton in 2010.
Gary, There's no chance voinovich will retire at this point. he has already started fundraising for 2010 and is very much committed to running again
The idea that Republicans shouldn't even challenge Rinovich in a primary is exactly why we have useless Republicans in the Senate like blubbering George. If he wins a primary, fine, then he's our guy. But no one should feel that V automatically should get a pass in a primary.
http://www.hamsandwich2010.blogspot.com
knowledgable:
Then I'll not support him. I feel like John C does. Primaries are made for the purpose of weeding guys like him out. As for Marc C's comment, what's the difference between sitting at home bitching because you have a Republican senator that doesn't agree with you or bitching because you have a Democrat senator that doesn't agree with you? They're both liberal. I'm not going to compromise my conservative beliefs for the likes of Voinovich.
It wont be me against Sutton in 2010. Breathe easy, Betty.
The only way that she loses is A) major, major, major scandal or B) a 1994 like year. Even a reverse of 2006 doesn't get it done. In 2006, Craig Foltin was hanging in against Sutton until the bottom dropped out for Republicans everywhere. From what I was told, he was down around 8-10% at one point before it all went wrong. He was Lorain's mayor and still got runover. This district was specifically drawn to keep Sherrod Brown from running for Governor in 2002 against Bob Taft…so it is pretty safe Dem.
If 2010 turns out to be a 1994, and there are no indications it will be, to win the Republican challenger would have to be a huge name who could raise a lot of money and also get a couple of fortunate breaks alomg the way. If successful, this person would then have the biggest target of them all on their back in 2012. Even if the unthinkable were to happen and a Republican were to win, it would still be very possible, if not very probable, that the district would be drawn to include more Democrats as part of the redrawing lines after the 2010 Census.
Well that was encouraging!
Re: Voinovich
Some of you are acting like he is Linc Chafee or something. This is what I am talking about. Do you guys really prefer Sherrod Brown to Mike DeWine?
Better this happens now than in Summer 2010 I guess.
I know that I prefer Brown over DeWine.
Pretty good hand-wringing comment thread.
Both parties have their "in name only" members in Congress. The Democrats have many conservative types whom I hardly consider to be Democrats.
Some commenters suggest primarying Voinovich out for a more right-leaning GOP'er. I don't think that is a wise move with the current environment being what it is. Voters have just rejected the extremism of the last 8 years. 2 years from now those same voters are not going to be in any mood to start electing far-right candidates again.
Just a thought.
Ben,
You are the one that brought up Franken living outside Minnesota for 30 years. And so did Coleman.
Either way, you may want to avoid the statistical analysis at 538 that all points to Franken having a very strong chance of winning.
And heck, Stevens still may lose.
You are right on the Voinovich fighting, though.
you will hold on in GA, with McCain campaigning for Chambliss. McCain stumping for that dirtbag so makes it clear he really that has no regard for anything anymore.
Here is what McCain had previously said about Chambliss's sicko tactics against Max Cleeland:
"I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield — it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."
And now he is out helping him. Sad ending for McCain.
OK settle down folks. On the Voinovich thing it is very important that the Republicans keep his seat in the 'R' column. We cannot afford Lee Fisher as our junior Senator from Ohio.
What Republicans fail to realize that is we need to keep our fights within our own family. What we do however is air our dirty laundry and not give a damn if Voinovich were to lose to a democrat. This is unacceptable.
The Republicans need to keep this seat as an 'R'. If it is Voinovich fine. If Voinovich were to get re-elected…our jobs as the Republican base is NOT over. We need to call Vukovich and tell him how we feel. We need to write him letters to tell him how we think he should vote.
If we sit back and do nothing then the elected official really does go by the seat of his pants.
We as constituents still have a job to do after election day. Take the Imiigration thing for instance. Or the Harriet Myers thing for instance. They backed off because of US!
You can blame Bush and Congressional Republicans for having their spend pork barrel craziness, but where were you? Did you call an office? Did you write a letter? If these people go unchecked then they will go hog wild.
The democrats are different. They circle the wagons for criminals in their own party and their consitituents sit back and do nothing.
If Republicans stay home and let Voinovich lose, then shame on you. Instead help him win and work to change the error of his ways. We can do that with our voices.
DF, I pretty much exactly agree with that. Some people seem to like to "teach lessons." We saw how well that lesson worked out in the 2006 Senate race.
Yes, Chuck, I did bring it up because they are running for office in Minnesota. That is actually relevant.
If that is relevant, then so is Coleman's 30 years outside Minnesota, I suppose.
And if lacking ties to Minnesota is relevant, Coleman's non-resident wife is also relevant…..but not as much as her being the middle man Norm's Ted Stevens-like dealings.
That's really funny, in light of Ted Stevens reelectoin.
….DF's comment about Dems supporting criminals was what i was talking about.
Ben:
I'm not gonna compromise my conservative values, like I did with McCain and like I did with Dewine, again. Doing so gets you squat. Liberals don't like or support them, conservatives don't like them and only support them by holding our noses as we vote for the sake of the "R" and, let's face it, the moderates are pretty much a myth. What they amount to is "liberal lite".
Just not gonna do it. Don't even ask.
Gary,
Then dont do it. If you are happier with a Democrat than Voinovich as Senator, then that is certianly your choice.
Gary,
How many letters have you written to your 'R' elected officials and voiced your opinion? How many times have you called their office?
Chuck…Let's talk about the criminal thing.
Ted Stevens election is not even certified. Trust me if he wins, the Republicans will kick him out. When Bill Clinton received fellatio in the Oval Office from unpaid intern and then lied about to a federal grand jury (commited a crime…lost his law license for it…and he is a former attorney general)…the dems circled the wagons and fought off the attackers.
The Republicans clean up their criminals. I will give you Bob Taft…he should have resigned and the Republicans should have called for it.
Once Ted Stevens is announced the winner, we will get his head and have him removed.
The democrats were prepared to stand by Marc Dann and Eliott Spitzer…but they resigned on their own.
DF:
The answer to that question is literally hundreds of times. In addition, since I am a public official, I get the opportunity to communicate on a more intimate basis with other elected officials more often than most. Furthermore, I write a conservative column in the local newspaper. So, communicating with my elected officials is not a problem for me.
Ben:
It's not a matter of being happier with a Democrat than Voinovich. I'm just saying why can't we take care of the problem in the primary. Yes, I know primaries can hurt a candidate but there are instances where a primary run is justified. I personally believe that Voinovich's record is justification. We would have the opportunity to replace a RINO with a candidate who is more reflective of the party he represents. I get so tired of Republicans saying on the one hand that we need to get back to our basics and then continue to put up these old RINOs for re-election simply because they have the advantage of money and incumbency. If a more viable candidate can be chosen in the primary, money shouldn't be the major issue. You yourself have pointed out how the opponents of California's Prop 8 out-spent those who were for it but Prop 8 passed anyway. It is possible. Why can't we wash this hairy old embarrassing critter out of our party and move on.
Gary,
I commend you for your public service. I was not aware that you are an elected official. My experience is that people piss and moan and have never even emailed their elected officials to voice an opinion.
I do agree with you…the primary is the place where the challenge needs to be done. However…if that old fossil comes out of the primary are you telling me that the alternative (Lee Fisher maybe) for 6 Years is better?
A tough primary challenge would bring George back over on some of his wacky things. I agree. Publicly…I have criticized George for not ending e-check back in the day. That does not mean I wanted a democrat in the office.
Senate is 6 years. It is going to take us until 2012 to run against Brown.
I have already lived through Metzenbaum and Glenn…I don;t want to through Brown and (insert liberal name here).
Well…..dang it, the freakin' dems always seem to run somebody so unbelievably unpalatible that it is next to impossible not to vote once again for the least worst selection.
Sheesh! Can't we just get a decent candidate to run! Please God, send US someone we can rally around.
Leave a comment