Posted on 12/29/2009 5:55:30 AM PST by GOPsterinMA
See tagline. It’s time to flush the old guard out of the GOP leadership. They are abject failures at promoting conservatives.
Actually, if Nelson had won in ‘96, he probably would’ve won reelection in ‘02 playing up his “moderate image”, and worse, he still would’ve been reelected again last year, so we’d have had to wait until 2014 to dump him. It’s funny that both Nelsons (Ben and FL’s Bill) could’ve been defeated in ‘06 despite the anti-GOP climate had stronger candidates run (Johanns in NE and Jeb in FL, for which both had an excellent shot of winning, Jeb was the only one who would’ve definitely won).
Throw all of them out!!! They are standing in the way of economic and cultural progress, robbing us of our freedom and our future in the process.
Done!
I remember that move and I was thinking, “Could this administration possibly be any stupider ?” They took out our best chance at getting the seat. Ricketts was a fiasco as a candidate, he lost in the worst showing for a Nebraska GOP Senate candidate since 1982 (64-36%).
As you pointed out, the big battle was in the Governor’s race when Dave Heineman (one of our best Governors in the country, btw) was about to get steamrolled by the RINOish Congressman Tom Osborne (Osborne had passed on running for the Senate in 2000, even when polling data indicated he would beat Ben Nelson for the open seat !), but Heineman courageously refused to get out of the way and defeated Osborne in an upset (Osborne’s running mate, State Auditor Kate Witek, was so flabbergasted she immediately switched parties after losing the primary ! The Dems ran her for the job she held in November and she lost in a landslide).
One enormous problem I have with the RNC and the leadership in general is the astonishing ignorance, willful or otherwise, or blind spots to which they have. We have free-for-alls for one office while letting others go, we need to have a stronger push to direct candidates to given offices where they have a better shot at winning and using hardball tactics against sitting incumbents to get them to run when they’re needed. We would NOT be in the minority, for example, in the Senate, had we persuaded sitting or ex-Governors to run in key races.
I cite the Osborne example as yet another. He was running for the open 3rd House seat, which could’ve elected ANY Republican, when he should’ve been told to run for the open Senate in ‘00 (and at the very least in ‘06, to run not against Heineman, a very capable individual, but against Nelson). Ditto Jeb in ‘06, Mike Rounds in SD last year against Tim Johnson, Ed Schafer in ND against either Senator, Tommy Thompson in WI against either Senator, Marc Racicot against Baucus in ‘02, Terry Branstad against Tom Harkin in IA, Mike Foster against Mary Landrieu in LA in ‘02, John Engler against either Senator in MI, Jim Gibbons in NV in ‘04 against Reid (where he has since been a disaster as Governor), and Gary Johnson against Jeff Bingaman in NM in ‘02 (that’s 10 more seats we’d have right there).
What’s the point of having popular former or current Governors wrapping up their last terms if we can’t utilize them to take out Democrat Senate incumbents ? Were the 17th Amendment never passed, many of these former Governors would’ve been elected by the legislatures to those offices based upon their executive experience. It’s why we often had better Senators a long time ago. But these guys need to be kicked in the ass by the party, and remind them it’s not about them, it’s about this country, and how just 10 people (in this instance) in office can change its course. They’re being CALLED upon to serve.
All I'll say is that in addition to the ten seats you've pointed out, FM, I would add Conrad Burns in 2006 (Reberg would have beaten Tester) and Ted Stevens in 2008 (any GOP besides him would have won, IIRC).
That's 52 seats folks - Obama’s agenda would have been laughed out of existence from day one.
Given that some of those guvs ended up in the Cabinet or in some national role (i.e. Racicot as RNC chair), you’d think they wouldn’t blanch at running for a job that would take them to Washington anyway. Do they think, “oh, if I do this, I’ll have to be there for like 20 or 30 years to gain seniority?” I say who cares, why not run for just one or two terms and then go home? We need that, instead of these lifers that have to be hauled out feet first. I mean, Tommy Thompson ran for president in 08, so he doesn’t have a problem going back to Washington even at his age, so why not take out Feingold, serve a term, and go home and relax?
Exactly. I mean, at least Jim Gilmore ran in VA (although his candidacy ended up a total fiasco, the worst showing in the modern era for a first tier candidate there), so he at least deserves credit for running.
But if he is going to run supporting the worst piece of legislation that he COULD block on day 1, then what is the use of electing him.
Quite frankly, Martha will mean more $$ coming to MA—so it “should” be in the net benefit of the citizens to vote for her. However, I care for the country and I can affect state law making by picking up the phone and talking to the state rep and state senator, whom I both know.
So, show me where this guy either supports or does not support the health care bill and I will go down and vote today (or at 7 AM on election day.)
I simply see this as a lost opportunity, and a good example of how people in MA run as republicans just to be able to run statewide. They are, in their hearts, democrats who do not want to pitch a primary fight.
There are a lot of names for men who are afraid of a good fight. One that is slang for a cat is the one that comes to mind for Scott.
Lt,
Scott Brown is against the national health care bill. Go to his website and read his talking points.
And has already filed legistlation curb funding and certain benfits of the Mass. health debacle.
he is also has been a national guardmen for over 30 years.And he got more votes in his district than Obama did.
He is a good man and certainley better than the alternative.
I WILL vote for him. That much is a given. Martha makes me sick.
I DID go to his site and read a bunch of stuff on healthcare. However, it was difficult to find and took all I could do to find out any semblance of a stance. Quite honestly, I had to get past him blowing his own horn for Mass Health—which I found a little concerning.
I guess it comes down to the fact that this single issue is the ONLY way he is going to get elected. Coming out against crazy spending on health insurance reform (it really has nothing to do with health “care.”) in clear, simple language is the key. It should not be “on his site.” It should BE his site.
Other issues are not going to matter between now and January 19th. Unless someone drops a bomb on iran, this takes the front and center position. Why republicans are not rushing into the state with their money and their time is beyond me. This certainly has a chance. But like most republicans they just seem “afraid” to hit hard, and hit often.
Why havent I seen a single TV ad for this guy?
(And yes....I also sent him a contribution today, with a note saying that I would generate more of that if I saw some aggressive advertising.)
I remember that move and I was thinking, “Could this administration possibly be any stupider ?” They took out our best chance at getting the seat. Ricketts was a fiasco as a candidate, he lost in the worst showing for a Nebraska GOP Senate candidate since 1982 (64-36%).
I thought Johanns was undecided on the Senate race but if he was indeed all but certain to jump in then appointing him to the cabinet was indeed retarded. So much so in fact that while I hate to even think it, could Bush have made a deal with that whore Nelson? He did vote for the tax cut and the judges didn't he? I don't think he provided the margin of victory on anything but. It's probably more likely Johanns's interest in running against Nelson was exaggerated.
Oh and damn those fools.
Watch Brown lose by a fairly narrow margin that could have been overcome with some help.
The recent results in Massachusetts has left them discouraged.
I’m about 98% sure that I read somewhere that GWB had a deal with Nelson not to run a strong challenger in 2006, because he worked with him on taxes, WOT and judges.
This race IS winnable.
It really comes down to this: a 60/40 Senate or a 59/41 Senate. 59/41 stops ObamaCare - the Maine Twins won’t flip on this.
Y’know, you’d think Dubya would’ve learned from his father that you don’t make such deals with Democrats... ever. Any deal with Nelson at the time should’ve been as such: “You play ball and switch parties, we support you. You stay a rodent, and Mike Johanns will start measuring for the drapes in January. Your call, babe.” It’s that simple, and given what we were facing in the ‘06 cycle, anything less than that ultimatum would be dereliction of duty as the head of the GOP.
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.