Newtie On Ohio
Tweet
Gingrich Says Ohio Race Holds Lesson for GOP
“It should serve as a wake-up call to Republicans, and I certainly take it very seriously in analyzing how the public mood evidences itself,” Gingrich said. “Who is willing to show up and vote is different than who answers a public opinion poll. Clearly, there’s a pretty strong signal for Republicans thinking about 2006 that they need to do some very serious planning and not just assume that everything is going to be automatically okay.”
It should also tell Democrats that picking candidates who want a little from column “A” and a little from column “B” without any there there is a loser strategy.
19 Responses to “Newtie On Ohio”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Newt’s a smart man, but Hackett ran as a hawk on Iraq and even used a misleading lead quote from the president prominently in his ads . He ran against a weak Repub candidate. I don’t think this race changes anything. However, it does portend a little something negative for the Democratic left.
I ‘m guessing Hodean did not show up in Hamilton County – and I have no idea either way. Maybe it means Hillary, also a smart woman, interprets this correctly and continues to tack right. The American people expect the Democrats to fight the war on terror – not “understand” the terrorists’ sturm and drang.
Dugger
Billmon over at Billmon’s Whisky Bar has some excellent coverage of this election in Ohio:
Too Close for Comfort
It’s particularly curious when you read things like the fact that Almost a third of all Diebold TSx machines in therecent California mock election test had one problem or another, as reported in Brad Blog, here:
Diebold Tests in California Even Worse Than Originally Reported
I suspect it will be a long time before America sees a truly fair and honest election again. With things like this, the GOPs will be raping America for quite a while.
Here’s a clue as to how politics work: try and run as a pro-Bush Republican in Democratic districts.
The reddest part of America and the righty almost loses, but thats a signal to Democrats that we’re doing things wrong?
How about we stop creating more terrorists, Dugger? How about we look at the policies that are specifically pointed to that are increasing terrorist numbers and we rethink them?
How about we work with the rest of the world on a real war on terror instead of invading the midle east’s most secular nation and creating a new Islamic state?
Oh wait, I guess I’m just trying to coddle those poor terrorists.
Still puzzled dugger about what you mean by Hillary Clinton “tacking right”. She has never been anything but a moderate, pro-choice, Democrat. She was always for the Iraq “struggle”. She generally votes for free trade.
I’d like some concrete examples of Hillary Clinton “tacking right”. Now if you say she’s trying to portray herself as more of a moderate, you may be right. But her ACTIONS have always been of a moderate. We’re not talking about Dennis Kucinich or Paul Wellstone here, we never were, regardless of what Dick Morris and Sean Hannity claim.
Dugger, terrorists are like termites. Left unchecked, they’ll eat your house out from under you or turn it into something you wouldn’t want to live in. But any exterminator can tell you that in order to kill them, you have to understand them. You have to know where they come from, and how they breed, and what you can do to stop them from breeding. Unless you want to have to pay to have your house tented every year (in Florida, at least), prevention is cheaper and more efffective.
You can never kill every termite in the world, just as you can never kill every terrorist in the world. You can argue, and bluster, and fume, and try to misdirect, but that is a plain and simple fact. Our only real hope for long-term security from terrorism is to understand what turns someone into a terrorist (where they come from), who has an interest in helping someone become a terrorist (how they breed), and then take action to stop the process. Getting rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan was a good positive step in this direction; they were (and are) religious fanatics bent on remaking the world according to their primitive superstitions. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein wasn’t a good positive step, because the only people he was terrorizing were his own. Yes, he was a very bad man. But he was a distraction from what should have been our next step – deposing the government of Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis have struck a devil’s bargain with the fanatical conservative mullahs in their country – “support our regime, and we will fund your madrasas and let you spread your religion. And we will publicly support your faith, even if privately we like our scotch old and our ham honey-cured.”
Never mind that it’s the country’s dependence on its oil reserves that is keeping it backward and oppressive. If they had to develop their human capital to support their economy, that bargain would collapse and after a generation or so the ordinary people would get sick of the mullahs preaching at them day after day after day. Preachers and activists can’t survive without something to be against, so they have to keep pushing the envelope until they push it too far.
I don’t normally agree with Thomas Friedman, but here he’s right. If we stop using so much Middle Eastern oil, and help China stop using so much Middle Eastern oil, that crutch that the Saudis are using will break. Then the country will have to learn to develop its people to survive, and those idiot mullahs will have to go do something useful for a living instead of continuing to survive as harange-outans.
beerwolf, this is a blog, not a place for rational discussion. Now dugger is going to have to go to another thread and claim that libruhls don’t ever have solutions and hope we all forget about your diatribe.
Can’t you just call him names like the rest of us?
Hackett did not run as a “hawk” on Iraq. Sure, he said we should stay the course, but so have most Democrats at this point. He did say that the original rationale was wrong, and that Bush has been utterly incompitent in handling it. While this doesn’t make him a “bring them home” dove, it doesn’t make him a real hawk either. And while Schmidt may have been “weak”, she was a standard-issue establish Republican who led Cincinnati Right to Life. She wasn’t any “weaker” than most other politicians, including the ten Republicans she beat in the primary.
Hackett ran an ad with footage of President Bush, and how Hackett agreed with him, and that is why he went to serve. He tried to play himself off as hawkish, along the lines of the Kerry model, and used his service as being his main qualification for voting him into office. He neglected to mention he was a liberal, or even a Democrat in his ads. He stated publically that he thought we all needed to pay more taxes and that President Bush was the most dangerous man in the world.
When will the Dems start running as Dems, rather than Republican lite?
The only reason this race was even close was because Hackett’s opponent had voted in favor of some tax increases, thus making her based a bit disillusioned with her. All this race showed was that if Republicans stay home, Democrats can get close.
Binky,
You ignored my point which was that the race was a wash overall but may have been bad news for the Democratic left. Hackett did run as a pro-war type and ran ads that made it seem like he and Bush were together. Thats hardly seems to jibe with the brand Democrat bandied about here.
Beer,
Using your metaphor, the termites are here and have been here – before Bush, before Clinton, before Reagan. And I’m not sure myself how much the Iraq war will help in the WOT. I can see it having symbolic value, strategic value and less tactical value. No matater, they’re here and the little b*stards re eating the wood. They need to be killed and then we do some of the long range things you are talking about – including a slow, thoughtful easing of the dependence on oil.
Neo,
I think and many commenters think Hillary has moved rightist. Yous seem to be saying she has always been more moderate than appreciated. Maybe so, maybe not. To me and others, she sure sounds more moderate – like on Judge Roberts.
Dugger
Hackett ran a strong campaign in a solidly Republican district. And while some Democrats might see encouragement in a losing effort, Republicans will assuredly be examining this race closely and will plan accordingly.
Dugger, why don’t you answer the question directly for once. Where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton has “tacked right”? What positions has she changed her mind on?
“A lot of people feel” and “Many commentators think” is not an acceptable answer.
Maybe then you can send me that list of Clinton battle fatalities that you promised me in another thread.
A conservative democrat running in a conservative district. Hmmm, sounds like a “representative” to me.
Yet the idiot people only vote for the letter behind a name, yet again.
Translated: Dugger just throws stuff out there, whether accurate or not, and refuses to back it up. You cons lie and lie and lie, but when asked to back the lies up, you refuse, or say other liars feel the same way you do.
How can anyone take you seriously?
BTW, did everyone hear that Dugger is a pedophile? He’s not that important to me, so I don’t have time to prove it, but my impression and others feel that he is a pedophile.
Neo,
“Dugger, why don t you answer the question directly for once. Where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton has tacked right ? What positions has she changed her mind on?”
Honest answer: Because its not that important to me. My impressions and others are that she has moved right. I’m not claiming I can or cannot prove it. I accept that you know her better than me and think otherwise. But come election time, I will add up the pluses and minuses and if she continues to bear out my move-right “impressions” I could consider voting for her – against certain Rs. You may claim victory here, because I choose not to fight. Sorry.
Dugger, Why Can’t We All Just get ALong
Neo,
I could care less whether you take me seriously or not.
I don’t like the nastiness in your last post.
Whether or not Hillary is perceived as having moved rightward really just relates to one’s impressions which is all I said. I used the word “tack” – which has this meaning among others: “The act of changing from one position or direction to another.” It is often is used to connotate a tactical shift in position. All fo this means is that we can’t prove squat about what Hillary really thinks and will do. As for your nastiness, rather than reply in kind, I’m just going to take a break from dealing with you in any way.
Dugger
Boy, you cons can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it.
Many times when you are challenged with facts, you weasel out, you and the other cons here. No, what you do is spread rumor, that’s all. Rumors hurt people, because some people hear a rumor enough and they believe it. Reference the smears on McCain in S. Carolina.
If you read OW’s boss’ book, you would see how these rumors gain “truth” by repetition, and they hurt people. Maybe Hillary isn’t hurt in this case, but this is why I try never to let a lie stand unchallenged.
I was being nasty to you- I don’t like when people make accusations that they are unwilling to back up. This isn’t LGF, liberals want people to back up their statements of “fact”.
I don’t think she’s actually moved right. Instead, I think she’s addressing the concerns of those to the right of her. It’s her version of Bill’s triangulation tactics.
“I don t think she s actually moved right.”
Maybe not, but it will be interesting to see her 2005 ADA and ACU ratings. Perhaps she’s being very selective in her statements and releases.
Dugger