Posted on 09/22/2007 1:26:00 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Last week, a SurveyUSA/WBZ poll out of Boston caused a minor earthquake in the Massachusetts political universe. The race to replace liberal Congressman Marty Meehan was supposed to be a sleepy affair leading to a walk-in-the-park victory for Democrat Niki Tsongas, the well-known wife of the late Senator Paul Tsongas. So it came as quite a surprise when the poll showed Republican Jim Ogonowski, a farmer and veteran from the Merrimack Valley, within 10 points of Tsongas. Tsongas polled just 51 percent to Ogonowski's 41 percent.
In any political environment, a win by Ogonowski on October 16th would be considered a stunning upset. Massachusetts has not sent a Republican to Congress in more than a decade. And though the district is relatively conservative by Massachusetts standards (if the Bay State ever sends a Republican to Washington, it will happen first here), Ogonowski had not been given much of a shot by the political classes. With the fallout from Iraq and 2006 continuing to take its toll on Washington Republicans, a win or close call by Ogonowski would signal that the political winds are gusting against the 11% approval Democrat-controlled Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
You guys (or gals) realize that I wrote “traditional” right?
Behold, the Massachusetts "Republican."
It would be phenominal if Jim Ogonowski were to win. A 28-year veteran of the Air Force whose brother died in the September 11 attacks, he would bring a much-needed perspective to Congress.
First he has to win, which is difficult even in the state’s most marginal distrcit.
I know they are Grandma,
guess I’m just very tired of RINOs
You could have stopped that easily with just a word or two to Bill Clinton to “stop AlQaida”.
I know. I remember how I felt when I had to vote for Ganske against Harkin. I felt at least we got something out of it by the Harkin win—Ganske is back practicing medicine.
Since when ? That was back in the days when they were Conservative all-around. You cannot be a social liberal and a fiscal Con, because in order to pay for the former, you have to be very liberal with tax $$. You can, however, be a social Con and a fiscal liberal, one reason we lost Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.