Sununu was to the right of Smith on the enviroment, but Smith was well to Sununu's right on several other issues. One of the most memorial things I recall from the 2002 campaign was Sununu saying he was willing to consider amnesty for illegals simply because "the President Bush supports it", and Smith replies incredulously "So? What does that have to do with anything? Illegal is illegal!" Score one for Smith. Sununu had about a 90% conservative track record but he too much of a butt-kissing Bush yes-man. Smith was more independent. But the bottom line is that anyone who supported replacing Smith in 2002 because he was polling poorly, should have had the common sense to replace Sununu in 2008 with a stronger nominee when Sununu was polling the SAME kind of numbers that Smith was getting six years earlier.
Perhaps the threat of a Smith primary challenge will keep Sununu from entering the race. I hope so, since Sununu is now the "likely loser" if he's nominated again. And yes it does show Sununu is a total hypocrite for calling on Smith not to run when he was a "likely loser" in 2002, but NOT doing the same when the shoe was on the other foot and HE was a "likely loser" in 2008. I can't believe I'm the only one pointing this out. Despite big Dem turnout in '08, we could have defeated Shaheen in 2008 if we didn't have a candidate tied to Bush. We certainly were able to keep the Senate seats in Nebraska, Tennessee, etc. in GOP hands by running new faces, remember? But if Chuck Hagel had INSISTED on running again and had been unopposed in the primary, that seat could be RAT today due to Hagel's dismal approval ratings. He had the common sense to retire, at least.
We do need to start grooming a farm team of rising stars in New Hampshire if we're ever going to take back the state. I think it's going to be a long time. The Rudman-Sununu crowd has controlled the state for decades and kept all other Republicans away from high office so they can give cushy political jobs to their kids. I have a hunch that if John Sununu was named John Doe, he would have never been elected to any office in the first place.
If Hagel had run again in NE, I can’t see the GOP having backed him again. In fact, I suspect he might’ve switched parties and been renominated as a Democrat (since he did endorse the False Messiah). Remember Tom Osborne’s RINO running mate threw a hissy when her ticket didn’t win that she switched to the Democrats before they were barely finished counting the votes so she could run again for her statewide office (she lost to the Republican). I think Mike Johanns still probably would’ve beaten Hagel running against him in the GOP primary or in a general (with Hagel as a Dem).
BTW, I never did get Hagel. I thought he was a very strange and peculiar man whose behavior was inexplicable. Almost like a Bob Kerrey clone. Vietnam vets turning into Jane Fonda types just is a mystery to me. Perhaps they were both brain damaged.
“Admittedly, Smith has done some pretty screwy eccentric things, which is why he was a weak candidate in 2002. Can’t figure out why the heck he endorsed Kerry in 2004 (no, it wasn’t to “get revenge on Bush” since Bush endorsed Smith in 2002, consistant with the white house position of ALWAYS supporting the incumbant).”
Bush may have given him tacit support. But pappy Bush endorsed Sununu, indicating where the family really stood.
As to why he endorsed Kerry. If he’s to be taken at his word, he wrote a letter to Kerry about it.
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/102904_smith_letter.pdf
Excuse the source. :o
Another weird thing, he tried to run for the Senate from Florida in 2004 but failed to get off the ground.
Returning to NH just to run against Sununu if Sununu runs would be another bizarre move.