Redstate

This is something the folks at Kos and MyDD have been in a tizzy about...contesting every CD. Does anybody really think this will have an impact?

If you look at their arguments, it appears they haven't quite thought this out.

(1) It will provide more reliable Dem voters for tighter upballot races. Really? Dem voters who wouldn't have come out to vote for a big, expensive, well-publicized statewide campaign will come out to vote for some out-of-step, probably unqualified sacrificial lamb?

(2) It will keep Dems in the mix, so that when the district becomes open or the demographics get a little better, at least there will be a bench for the party to pick a candidate from. This is the most convincing argument, but even then, are you really willing to spend millions of dollars that could go to a competitive race just for maintenance fees? And speaking of money...

(3) Challenging every CD will draw money toward safe Republican incumbents, thus denying it to Republicans in tighter races and giving those Dems a better chance to win. This assumes that a) Republicans don't know how to spend their money and b) Dems aren't also funneling money to the uncompetitive CD that could be used in a competitive CD. Neither is true.

This strategy that they're so fond of has never been tried (and thankfully so for the Democrats), so there's no way to know if it would truly fail as magnificently as I think it would. Their most cited evidence is the election of Ben Chandler and Stephanie Herseth, two Dems in conservative districts. To use those examples to support the strategy they propose is to be purposefully ignorant of the unique circumstances of those elections. The same will be true for OH-2, and that's assuming Schmidt doesn't paste the floor with Hackett, which it seems pretty clear that she will.

Perhaps they are (I am sure that comment was not made without corroborating information), but if so it strikes me as a really silly approach for conservatives to take.

Jean Schmidt has been the President of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati.

She supports overhauling the tax code and replacing it with a flat tax.

She supports making Bush's tax cuts permanent, supports elimination of the death tax, and opposes raising taxes as a deficit reduction strategy (ibid).

She "Supports restrictions on immigration and requiring background checks for visiting foreign nationals and the fingerprinting of visitors.  Also, additional border patrolling should be taking place to help secure our borders to ensure others are not able to enter our country illegally."

She personally communicated to Ohioans for Concealed Carry's Collin Rink that "she favors the repeal of the Brady Law and "Will Never" support any "Assault Weapons" ban." She has the endorsement of the NRA.

I am open to the possibility that I am missing something here, but I believe she has given, both in the stances she has taken on her campaign website, in her past advocacy, and in her tenure in the State legislature, conservatives every reason to back her with enthusiasm.

I wouldn't say it has never been tried, and that there is no precedent Democrats are basing it on, because there is, and her name is Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D-SD).

The idea is you can do in a special what you can't do in a general, and once people try someone on for size, they often find they like them.

but it isn't the topic of this story.

Diary it if it intrigues you, but let's not pursue that topic in this venue.

She might support a lot of things. Her actions speak differently.

Hackett is pro-guns, but really who isn't these days?

... I will point out that 1) that was in the primary, and 2) they were advocating Mike DeWine's son-- which does not exactly make my heart go all aflutter.

There is no question that fiscal conservatives need some wins. However, abandoning someone who is good on every other issue-- and whose weakness on spending may be attributable to being a good soldier voting with party on items advocated by the disaster that is Bob Taft-- is not a recipie for success.

But he's never VOTED on gun issues, and spoke nothing more than politaspeak on this issue, at least on his website.

In special elections, throw the rules out. Turnout is so low for the most part, that a well organizated campaign can sometimes pull off a major upset.

I mean, he's a marine who has been firing guns as recently as April. He owns many many guns. He has had a concealed weapons permit for years.

By your logic, everyone who has never been in Congress would be unable to fill your criteria, Republican or Democrat. I mean, I understand being nervous that a Democrat is just posturing, but if you really look at this guy, it's pretty unlikely that he is.

this isn't the place for me. There's a fine line between smart discussion board management and power trips, and I'm not sure you all walk it carefully enough. Good luck with the site.

"""By your logic, everyone who has never been in Congress would be unable to fill your criteria, Republican or Democrat."""

That's what makes it hard for our PAC, especially in primary races. Sometimes we have to take a leap of faith with statements. If both have no record and claim to be pro, we usually stay out. If someone has an activist(or anti) record before running, it's easier.

As a gun owner, I'd be less worried about Hackett if he flat out said "I'm a John Dingell Democrat" on guns. "I'm a hunter" is nowadays a very suspicious answer thanks to John Kerry. Dianne Feinstein is a gun owner and has a conceal carry permit.  Joe Schwarz on the Republican side is a gun owner who voted anti in the Michigan State Senate. He's pro for him, but not for us peons.

Now, I'm not as concerned about Hackett(as I would be if it was Columbus) since that district is heavily NRA country with its demographic mix.

Even if Hackett is not really pro-2a at heart, he's vote that way if he's smart since he'll have a big target on his back in 06 if he wins(which may very happen since special elections are so unpredictable). NRA usually endorses incumbents if they vote pro-2a. With right to life gunning for him in 06, he'll need one of the major grassroots groups behind him in 06.

Michigan and Ohio aren't 100% partisan when it comes to 2a issues. There's a heavy rank and file union contingent which is very pro-2a. However, many of the check writers are more of the "New Left" segment and provide a lot of pressure on the party. They prefer Michael Moore to the working class.

Many of the pro-2a democrats in Michigan are from rural areas or white working class areas. The most anti are in University Towns(Ann Arbor), the inner city(Detroit/Flint), or rich left wing areas(SE Oakland County - think Falls Church, VA).

One underlying issue in Ohio though. The gun owners hate the RINO Taft on the same level as they do Chuck Schumer, so gun owners may not be as Republican in Ohio as they are in other places. Many of them vote person over party anyway.

From what I can tell of Hackett, there's a firm belief in civil liberties there. That's why his environmental solutions seem to suggest, this is what we, as individuals, can do and not what the government can do, and why he's pro-choice (right to privacy, government should stay out, etc). So in that sense, I think it would be consistent with his general approach towards the issues to want the government to stay away from guns. But then again, seeing as though that's kinda how I view it, I could very well be imposing my own beliefs on his. But then there is the consideration that even if he's not a "true believer", the pressures of his district would probably conform him to a pro-gun position, anyway.

Off topic: What do you think of the situation in DC with the federal gov't trying to revoke DC's anti-gun law?  I'm against it, because I think the locality has jurisdiction and the federal government should stay out, and DC has just as much right to say they don't want guns as Virginia has to say they do, but it's an odd bit of legislation. (I'm usually pretty pro-gun, although I don't have issues with safety lock legislation).

It's off topic. Diary it (my preference as it is a good subject) or drop it.

you know I'm sure that is great advice. Thanks.

I will assume that some of the postions held by the TRL Cincinnati gives mainstream Republicans, and Independants a bit of pause such as oppostion to Living Wills. I'm not sure about the RS postion on them but am willing to be enlighted.

 

There has not been much pro Jean Schmidt activity on the web. Just try a google on Jean Schmidt or Joe Braun.

As Weapons of Mass Discussion says:

Some very interesting analysis from MyDD, a liberal blog of some note, about how the center-right side

of the blogosphere has pretty much ignored the Schmidt/Hackett race. I'd have to agree. Aside from WMD, NixGuy, Eric Minamyer, VikingSpirit, BizzyBlog, Porkopolis, and Project Logic , have covered the race.  But aside from these local blogs, this race has received absolutely zero attention.