It’s Called Local Politics

10:08 am EST August 5th, 2005 | Politics | 14 Comments

The party line from the RNC (just listen to Limbaugh if you are ever in doubt what the current party line is, that’s what I do) on the Ohio special election is that the only reason the race was close was because Hackett ran as a conservative. To which I answer “duh”. If you’re running in a district that has been so consistently and overwhelmingly Republican, you would be an idiot to run as if you were Dennis Kucinich, wouldn’t you? For instance, Sen. Landrieu is against abortion, and considerably more conservative than the average Democrat. That’s because she has to get elected in Louisiana, which is more conservative than the average American state. But consider the flip side. Do you think Mitt Romney, George Pataki and Arnold Schwarzenegger could have gained their seats by campaigning as the sort of hard-right Republican that wins elections in the south? Absolutely not. Republicans in blue states have to run to the center or even the left (see Schwarzenegger on gay marriage) in order to win their races. That’s just how it works.

Where things change is when you run a national campaign, where it should be quite clear now that in order to win if you’re going to hitch yourself to an ideology you better stick with it and receive credit for conviction of character from those who disagree with you (ie, Bush) as opposed to trying to slice and dice demographics but never motivating anyone in the process (Kerry).

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

14 Responses to “It’s Called Local Politics”

  1. Dugger says:
    August 5, 2005 at 11:08 am

    Seems like your saying the Repubs take on this is correct: Hackett had to pretend to be a conservative to have a chance. Throughout this whole discussion, you talk as if Democrats and liberal Rs (I guess) have no core beliefs – they said things because thats what you need to say to get elected. We don’t want narrow ideologues but surely we want representatives with core beliefs and standards. Don’t we???

    Dugger

  2. Jadegold says:
    August 5, 2005 at 12:08 pm

    I guess calling AWOL George a “chickenhawk”–as Hackett did on a number of occasions– is now the conservative thng to do.

    And I suppose since Hackett is pro-choice and opposes AWOL George’s plan to dismantle SS— guess these, too, are the new conservative positions.

  3. Dugger says:
    August 5, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    Jade,

    Who’s ‘AWOL George’? I’m aware that Hackett called our ex fighter pilot president a chickenhawk and then shamelessly used a quote from him in his commercial to make it look like he and Bush were ideological buddies, but since the presdient was never AWOL, it can’t be him you are referring to.

    Dugger

  4. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 5, 2005 at 2:08 pm

    shamelessly used a quote from him in his commercial to make it look like he and Bush were ideological buddies,

    Wasn’t that a clever adaptation of what the R’s did during the last presidential election? As I recall, the R’s ran a similar ad to make it look like a certain someone agreed with the president.

    Goose, Gander, say hello to Sauce.

  5. Dugger says:
    August 5, 2005 at 3:08 pm

    “Wasn t that a clever adaptation of what the R s did during the last presidential election?”

    What ad was that? Was it as gross as Hackett’s: Actually using the Pres.’s words as if he and Hackett were old buds?

    Dugger

  6. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 5, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    Well, now that you ask and I have to go look it up, I find that my doddering old memory is playing tricks on me again.

    I was thinking of Tom Daschle’s ads which showed him giving W a hug after a SOTU speech. Apparently my memory of the event was colored by all the hollering about it from my side of the aisle.

    So a Democrat isn’t allowed to agree with a Republican president anymore?

  7. Oliver says:
    August 5, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    No, they just used the corpses of 9/11 victims in their ads.

  8. dude says:
    August 5, 2005 at 5:08 pm

    funny how these guys switch tunes so damn often. After* the election, they say the guy was a conservative. *Before* the election, they tried to lambaste the guy, calling him a “liberal democrat”. Just goes to show you that these guys will do anything to win, often without respect to the truth or integrity.

  9. Quaker in a Basement says:
    August 5, 2005 at 6:08 pm

    The ad opens with video of Bush saying: “There is no higher calling than service in our armed forces.”

    Hackett voices over: “I agreed with that. That’s why I volunteered.”

    Where’s the grossness? The deception? The “old buds”?

  10. jnfr says:
    August 5, 2005 at 11:08 pm

    Hackett was clear on being pro-choice. Nothing conservative about that.

  11. johnnyprogressive says:
    August 6, 2005 at 2:08 am

    I believe Dugger’s belief that Hackett’s ad was “gross” stems from his inability to comprehend that someone can be a soldier and also be a Democrat.

  12. Dugger says:
    August 8, 2005 at 9:08 am

    Quaker,

    I expect I exaggerated a little but nevertheless the timing of the ad and having it lead off with a quote from G Bush followed up by Hacket saying he agrees, does suggest Hacket would not have been unhappy if the Hamilton County voters assumed that he was not running against the Pres ‘s policies or his Iraq effort.

    jp

    “I believe Dugger s belief that Hackett s ad was  gross stems from his inability to comprehend that someone can be a soldier and also be a Democrat.”

    Not so. Many heroic Democrat soldiers , even left wing ones like McGovern. That service though does not inocluate them from criticism about even service related policies. Two invididuals could not be further apart than Ollie North and McGovern, yet they both served heroically. Both can’t be right. Either, thereby, is open to criticism.

    Dugger

  13. pionar says:
    August 8, 2005 at 11:08 am

    Dugger: I expect I exaggerated a little but nevertheless the timing of the ad and having it lead off with a quote from G Bush followed up by Hacket saying he agrees, does suggest Hacket would not have been unhappy if the Hamilton County voters assumed that he was not running against the Pres  s policies or his Iraq effort.

    Watch it with the dodecatuple negative! why can’t you say, “Hackett would have been fine if the Hamilton County voters assumed he wasn’t running against the Pres’s policies or his Iraq effort?”

    Sorry. Grammar nazi here.

  14. Dugger says:
    August 8, 2005 at 1:08 pm

    Pionar,

    Your renditon reads a h*lluva lot better.

    Dugger