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?
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.