Redstate

really isn't worth your support. Please do some research on her; just because she is running against a Democrat doesn't automatically make her deserving of your endorsement.

Yes, she does deserve our support, if only because it is a vote against Hackett.

RS is a Republican blog. That means you should support Republican causes and candidates. The best way to do so, IMHO, is to point out, applaud, and promote those most successful and worthy. If you simply endorse everyone with an (R) after their name, your endorsement is completely meaningless.

Schmidt is, not to mince words, a terrible candidate. For you to support her on the front page solely because her opponent is a Democrat is to elevate party loyalty above principle to an absurd, and ultimately counterproductive, degree.

I think you're missing the point. It's not just that Hackett is a Democrat, it is that he is a radical lefty Democrat. Quite frankly, anybody who calls the President a "chickenhawk" during the course of an election is not someone we want in Washington.

If Schmidt were running against a Sam Nunn/David Boren type Democrat, I think this post that you see here would be a little different, because I'm certainly not enthused about Schmidt, but the last thing we need in Washington is another politician who owes their seat to Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.

Maybe the pile needs an addition. Schmidt might not be the greatest candidate, but Hackett is less qualified than her for the office, and he has been going around trashing Bush personally.

Anyone that supports Hackett is not a Republican, end of story. And any Democrat attacking Schmidt and promoting Hackett should be banned immediately.

principle does Hackett stand for that we should applaud? We should tout a left-wing candidate simply because the primary voters here may not have chosen the most charismatic Republican?

Bottm line is that given a choice between a poor Republican and a Democrat - absent issues of moral turpitude - we should choose the Republican.

I would call Hackett a libertarian Democrat more than anything else. He's blunt, yes, but he also went of Hardball and talked about having a concealed weapon permit for the sake of having one. He's just a marine, not a politician, for whatever it's worth.

He's certainly been sharply critical of the war in Iraq, but on other issues he's pretty centrist. The Cincinnati Post endorsed Hackett (they supported Bush over Kerry).

The lefty blogs have fallen in love with Hackett, probably mostly because Schmidt is so lousy and they think a (D) might actually have a chance, but taking your endorsement cues based on who kos supports is just as silly as supporting all Republicans regardless of merit.

contending that he'll vote for Denny Hastert for Speaker and caucus with the Republicans?

can vote for whoever you want.

My point was that RS throwing their support behind a terrible candidate is counterproductive in the long run because it diminishes the importance and impact of their endorsements. I'm not suggesting y'all promote Hackett, but there's no need to endorse anyone. Better silence than a front page post pushing Jean "well, at least she isn't a Democrat" Schmidt.

if I agreed that the RNC endorsing every Republican weakened it. I don't believe that to be the case.

that RS considered itself something more than a mouthpiece for the RNC.

My apologies if I misunderstood.

Actually his positions on the issues seem pretty much statist.  He's opposed to any sort of personal retirement account for Social Security while supporting a tax increase.  He's called for more tax dollars for health care and on the environment has been touting the "we're only 4.5 percent of the world's population but use 25 percent of its energy" meme.

As far as his personally having a concealed carry permit*, who cares?  Even Al Gore and John Kerry had enough presence of mind to do photo ops with rifles.  Show me where he talks about gun ownership in terms of the right to keep and bear arms while pledging to oppose any new federal gun control laws rather than in terms of being a collector or a hunter** and maybe there might be some traction on this issue.

* I'll leave it to others to point out that there is nothing mutually exclusive about supporting gun control (for others) while wanting your right to a gun or a concealed carrier permit to be protected.  I seem to recall that there were a number of prominent leftists in California and NYC who had exactly that position.

** I think it's also telling that he keeps mentioning "trigger locks" and "gun safes" which suggests IMO that should he be elected, he will probably support making these mandatory as "common sense gun control" and use his bona fides as a gun owner to justify it.  

1 - As much as many may dislike it, in many respects this district is the heart of GOP Ohio, and Joann Davidson was the working field marshall of the GOTV effort for Bush in 2004. An effort which famously succeeded, and as a result she, Davidson, is now RNC #2 or 3. The state party threw everything into this race (easy decision, considering nothing else is going on in an August off-year).

2 - That said - watch for turnout. Portman's win last fall had massive turnout for Bush (Davidson et. al.'s efforts) and nearly 310,000 total votes cast for both sides. He won with the regular 70/30 GOP split. In the primaries Schmidt won with 14,000 and Hackett with 7,000 votes. If turnout is low, Hackett's far-left approach could drive out enough wackos to squeak in.

3 - Heavily discount opinions about how good or bad a candidate Schmidt is. Focus on who gets the base to vote. If she wins by anything better than 60/40 this story disappears. If she doesn't, look at how the machine failed. This should be a yellow-dog GOP district, and though she's nicked a bit on taxes, in the primary she beat Mike DeWine's son (if you want to see a candidate with lots of issues, review that) and for the democrats to attack her on taxes says a lot (they're better?).

4 - If she loses, look at the numbers. I'd bet turnout would be miniscule.

to speak for the people here who set our policy on supporting candidates, the point was to bring out the obvious contradiction in your post. You don't gain influence by just, as Archie Bunker used to say, "saving your vote for the Big One" just like you don't invest by stuffing cash in the Mason jar you have buried in the backyard. You gain influence by weighing in and being heard and hopefully listened to.

Boren and Nunn were mentioned above, but the problem with the GOP in Ohio, in many ways, is trying to find democrats. Simply finding them. The GOP is suffering from a 20 year dominance of statewide offices. The only democrats left are up north (Kucinich and others) and a few struggling to be noticed in Columbus and Cincinnati. It's not like there's even a remote choice involved here.

As silly as it seems, the best, most articulate, most impressive Ohio democrat is Jerry Springer and that says a lot about how empty the democratic bench is. With one exception, they have nobody left with statewide office experience who could plausibly claim a centrist position.

With no competition, you get the contests in the GOP primaries, which is why Schmidt is fine, and the 2006 GOP governor's primary will be fascinating to watch.

If Schmidt falters, she'll face another Club for Growth challenge, but I doubt she will, and the national issues will allow her to re-align her positions with the national GOP issues and local powers to avoid just such problems.

Is, first of all, gun owners should and are responsible about their guns. I don't think saying that you don't leave your guns lying about means that you're going to start legislating them. The strong idea I get is he doesn't think the government should legislate much in terms of personal freedoms, including right to privacy issues and gun control, which is actually a more ideologically consistent position than either Democrats or Republicans usually have.

You've obviously read his position on social security. I tend to agree with it, but then again, I'm a moderate Democrat and make no secret about it, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on the insurance/investment divide. The health care thing I would say you're being rather deceptive about because he specifically says not more taxes for health care, but rather that we should reposition our priorities in how we spend the taxes we have. I don't think that's radical.

On the environment/energy thing, well, I've heard Republicans state the same thing. We use too many resources, and we're not energy independent. That's not really what's up for debate. The solutions to the problem are, and his solutions are highly individualistic and suggest, IMHO, a view of the world that focuses on independent responsibility and self-management, not government interference. He encourages people to change their light bulbs and buy hybrid cars. He doesn't suggest any sort of emissions policy or cap on companies or government involvement in any way. Hence the libertarian Democrat label.

 . . . Hackett is a "centrist."  He appears to have taken very few public positions on the issues and his rhetoric sounds more typical of someone from the Howard Dean rather than the Joseph Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party.  Touting their credentials as veterans who hunt and own guns didn't make either Al Gore or John Kerry centrists either.

Keep in mind here that most of the posters here would prefer a candidate who is either a conservative or libertarian and Hackett has pretty much shown that he's neither.  

Schmidt, regardless of what her detractors have said, has the virtue of bring right on Social Security reform, unambiguous in her support of RTKBA, supports a flat tax, is pro-life, and would be another vote in favor of securing our borders.  

I will grant that she's wrong in her support for the Medicare prescription drug benefit and the energy bill (particularly the ethanol portion) but I have seen nothing indicating that Hackett would be better on either of these issues and the few public positions he's taken show that he's against personal retirement accounts, wants to raise taxes, and is pro-abortion while taking no public positions on any issue that would be construed as either "conservative" or "libertarian."

Many democrats know that gun control is their number one achilles heel, but their big checkwriters and "leaders" are also the biggest gun grabbers in the party. George Soros, Michael Moore and much of Hollywood fits this description.

The DLC is pushing for the democrats to talk right and vote left on guns. Americans for Gun "Safety" tries to co-opt a term that gun owners have used for 100 years while promoting a gun control agenda in disguise. John Kerry talked about being a hunter, but could not hide from his voting record and did the same as Gore with gun owners.

As for Paul Hackett, all he does on his website is say that he's a gun owner, hunter, and supports safe storage of his own guns. That's good, but it doesn't say what his policy positions are on this issue. This doesn't tell me anything. It sounds to me (SAFR-PAC committee member - Pro-2a organization) that Hackett is just playing games on this issue.

Schmidt on the other hand at least has a voting record that is pro-2a.

also a moderate (but rational) democrat.. can you imagine if we put every Tom, Dick and Harry extremist in our party on a pedestal?

We'd run out of pedestals! Put them under the rug instead.. and besides, can it really hurt to have Iraq experience in the halls of our government? :-)

I'll play for a while.

No one is putting Schmidt on a pedestal and she's not an extremist.

The whole "chickenhawk" insinuation is really tiring. As Frederick the Great said, "I had an ass who accompanied me on a dozen campaigns, in the end he was still an ass." So no, I don't see where experience in any war gives you a bye on substance any more than not having combat experience does.

particularly respectful or useful to debate the merits of Hackett on RS. I probably should have confined my response to Leon to the Cinci Post link and the critique of reflexively supporting dKos targets.

Suffice it to say that I see no reason for RS to waste valuable credibility endorsing a candidate like Schmidt. You should perhaps look beyond her campaign website when evaluating her credentials; her past actions are telling.

The worst I've heard/read about her is 1) she's not dynamic, 2) she voted for some tax increases (this, BTW, is Club for Growth's deal not necessarily mine), 3) she hasn't embraced the label 'conservative, and she might have been mean towards Hackett.

On the otherhand, I have Hackett who has directed the epithet "chickenhawk" at opponents and who purports to be a commissioned officer but conducts himself in the memorable phrase as "one more fit to carry the hod than the epaulet."

I defy anyone to point to an issue where Paul Hackett has actually articulated a position that would be considered to be conservative, libertarian, or centrist.

He's opposed to reforming Social Security with personal retirement accounts but wants to raise taxes.

He's pro-abortion.

He wants to spend more tax dollars on health care

He's reanimating the "outsourcing our jobs overseas" meme from 2004

He's brought back the "chicken hawk" smear

The only thing he's said that would distinguish him from any other leftist personal injury attorney running for Congress is that he's a veteran and he owns guns.  Which isn't much of a distinction since Al Gore and John Kerry both said the same thing.

I have to disagree, and I'd vote for Hackett if I were in Ohio.  I disagree largely for the same reason that the left blogs push the "candidate in every precinct" issue.

There is one absolutely critical vote that happens at the start of every Congress.  That's the vote for who is majority leader.  Regardless of how much you like the candidate of the other party and dislike your own, if you put the other party in power you give a vote for the majority leader to be, well, the other party.

Now, your representative can affect some of the followon issues.  But thanks to the way both parties have tightened their holds on how the House runs, the party in charge pretty much controls the agenda.  What bills reach the floor, what members get acknowledged to enter their amendments, when the voting closes (15 minutes - snort - and at reasonable hours - double snort - went out the door a long time ago), and probably most critical who sits on the conference committee.

So regardless of how good or bad an R Schmidt might be, I think it's absolutely right that Redstate as an R site support her candidacy just because she's an R.

Seriously what about Hackett's actual position on the issues* would qualify him as a "centrist"?  

Seems to me that the only thing that has been used to justify that label is not any position on the issues that he's taken or the rhetoric he's used but that he's a veteran and owns guns.

Al Gore and John Kerry were both veterans who liked to hunt but neither of them would qualify as "centrists" IMO.  Nor were either supporters of the RTKBA when it came down to it.

* Speaking as someone who considers a candidate's position on the issues to be more important than the public persona they or the MSM have constructed about themselves.  

you're directing this to me? Because I agree with you.

Just not debating the issue you seem to be debating.

I don't care whether you like Schmidt or Hackett or Tinky Winky. I don't care whether you always vote R or D or T.

I simply am trying to point out that endorsing a candidate like Schmidt diminishes the influence of future RS endorsements. No one here is actually enthusiastic about Schmidt, and for good reason. The people who support her simply see her, at best, as better than the alternative despite her myriad flaws. That's not a compelling reason to give her front page support, unless RS just wants to play cheerleader for every Tom, Dick, and Tinky.

I think a lot of people on either side of the ditch would tend to agree with you privately if not publicly.  I would also add that I think that most of the complaints (issue-wise) that Republicans (Democrats) have about their nominee not being conservative (liberal) enough on a particular issue are probably more true about their Democratic (Republican) rival.  Part of the reason for this is that it is rare that you will see a Republican (Democrat) opponent who is to the left (right) of their opponent on an issue that is likely to swing a voter.

Example: Republicans may not like Bush's Medicare benefit but we realize that Democrats wanted a larger one so it wasn't an issue that would cause us to crossover and vote for Kerry.  By the same token, Democrats may not have liked Kerry's waffling on "gay marriage" but they realize he voted against DOMA and opposed a FMA so it was a wash for them.

We each vote for the candidate that is closest to our ideal on the issues and that often means voting a party line but fighting like h*** for a better choice during the primary.

read what I said before replying? Because I could just repost the same comment here if you missed it; oddly enough, it still applies.

My point is that if RS wishes to be influential in persuading moderates to support Republicans over Democrats in the future, they would do well to eschew endorsements of really lousy Republican candidates. IMO, they would help win more House seats following that strategy, and put more deserving people in Congress as well, than by uncritically shilling for the RNC.  

Since everyone knows that this election won't tip the balance overall in the house

In a national election, where majority can swing either way, then obviously you want to get an R or a D in there as you see fit.

This is why a conservative group like COAST can say "just don't vote on Tuesday" since they know Republicans will keep control of the house, and they can just put up a better candidate in 06

This election "won't tip the balance overall in the house"? CAFTA passed by 2 votes, and Portman's was not one of them. If Hackett wins, CAFTA has a one vote margin. Now, granted, it is a question of simple wheeling and dealing (vote buying) to some extent, and the GOP could likely have found another vote, but a 2 vote margin is absolutely at the point of tipping the balance.

Maybe CAFTA will be the closest vote, but this is such an easy race to choose in, there should be no questions involved. Hackett has one huge personal plus, and countless typical negatives.

Schmidt has plenty of nit picky minuses, but several huge plusses. She becomes one of 435 easily and blends in with the GOP majority with scarcely a ripple - that's what governing power is made of.

but Fox News Radio is saying that turnout is heavy.

I think there's a difference between an endorsement and an exhortation to vote.

Neither of the threads on today's house race seem to be screaming for conservative/Republican people in OH-2 who happen to read RS to drop everything and run out and vote FOR Schmidt.  Instead it seems to be along the lines of 'look at this crazy lefty who's wrapping himself up in moderate clothing, perhaps for the benefit of society you should vote for his opponent who happens to be 'ol what's her name.'

Election day is not exactly the best day to be an absolute purist on your ideological convictions.  That's what primaries are for.  

In a 2-party system we don't have a 'none of the above' option.  If we stay home and choose not to vote because one candidate only agrees with us 60, 70, 80 percent of the time while the other candidate probably only agrees with us 30-40 percent of the time, it's impossible to make progress towards that 100% goal.  And if the absence of the conservative base causes her to lose, Hackett becomes an entrenched incumbent, and we know that all incumbents are hard to beat.

In the OH-2 republican primary, Schmidt ran the best campaign, for good or for ill.  In the general election, she's the best of the two choices.  Not a great choice, but better than the alternative.

>>RS is a Republican blog.<<

Is that true?  I understood from the moderators that RedState if a conservative blog.  

Sometimes those are the same thing and sometimes they are not.  Do we still criticise the president here when he promotes a giant pork-barrel phrma-giveaway version of a prescription drug benefit?  Can we attack John McCain for his relentless fight against the Constitution?

Or do we always have to be loyal R's?

First, I sure hope the sizeable Republican base in the 2nd congressional district has enough pride to turn out the vote to prevent a Hackett victory.  Second, if, for some reason, Hackett wins, the press will mistakenly spin this as voters being discontent with Repubican leadership at the national level than at the state and local levels.

You made the claim that but for the war on Iraq, Hackett was pretty much a "centrist" on the issues.  Naturally that prompted the question of what those issues were and rather than back up your claim, you backed away by stating that it would not be "particularly respectful or useful to debate the merits of Hackett on RS" once it became clear that there were some of us who were knowledgeable enough to question those "merits."

You also continued to trash Schmidt the GOP nominee - again with nothing to support it - and Redstate for supposedly endorsing her* supposedly because Kos was against her.  I then proceeded to list Schmidt's positions on Social Security reform, abortion, RTKBA, immigration, and taxes - issues that have been some of the hottest topics here at Red State and reasons why our readers would be inclined to support her because they, by golly, actually care about issues and these issues in particular.

Ironic that you began by attacking Redstate's credibility with an implication of partisan hackery only to so conclusively reveal your own.

* A formal Redstate endorsement would need to be unanimous and would be labeled as such. Erick's story should not be construed as representing any opinion but his own just as my diary entries represent my own opinions and not those of anyone else.

because we hide this nefarious fact in the first line of our mission statement.

Welcome to RedState.org, a Republican community weblog.[...]RedState.org is focused on politics, and seeks the construction of a Republican majority in the United States.

CAFTA still would've passed, and I think CAFTA will be by far the closest house vote to come up through 2006.

But I think what you consider a plus for Schmidt I consider a minus. I like the idea of a congressperson causing a ripple. Even if not by vote, by personality. I've always been a sucker for an entertaining figure, and frankly, partisan divide aside, Hackett is much more entertaining than Schmidt. But I suppose we can't all be infotainment junkies in it for the show.

And seeks to maintain the Republican majority in the United States.

I'm just say'in...

Who was corrupt with style!

I've been disappointed in the latest scandles for their lack of good quotes......sigh, yet another reason to miss the Clinton days.....

. . . to distinguish ourselves from all of the Republican sites that seek to lose majority status by failing to turn out for special elections.

I honestly don't even know where to start. Your incapacity to use google, beyond finding the campaign websites of the candidates in question, is really not my problem. But I probably shouldn't be surprised that you leap to conclusions without doing sufficient research; I mean, poorly reasoned personal attacks are nothing new for you.

If I wanted to trash Schmidt, as opposed to point out her shortcomings as a candidate, I'd probably have mentioned Minamyer, or the Bengals, or one of the many other juicy but not really relevant tidbits out there.

There is a difference between front page posts and diaries; as important your diaries are, they aren't equivalent. As far as "formal" goes, RS has only officially supported a handful of positions that I can recall.

Those RS readers who care about issues, by golly, probably are quite aware of Schmidt's history and don't need you to read her campaign website to them. Believe it or not, some of us have been following this race for longer than the past week.

I attempted to walk away from my statement on Hackett because I wanted to avoid, given the respect shown to me by Leon, Thomas, and others, seeming to promote a Democratic candidate on RS. I wanted to restrict the scope of my comments to Schmidt, and in responding to Leon I strayed from that, as I acknowledged. I'm happy to discuss Hackett with you on dKos, if you actually care, but you might want to think about what centrist actually means before you quote postitions from Hackett that enjoy solid majority support across the nation as evidence that he's not centrist.

The sad thing is that I've wasted half my day making a point that is repeatedly being lost: regardless of whether RS helps Schmidt win this particular election, I think that endorsing candidates like her will cost RS credibility with moderates, and hence diminish the value of future RS support of candidates. You may or may not agree with that, but you might at least do me the courtesy of indicating that you comprehend the substance of the thesis I am so poorly attempting to convey.

And how you derive "partisan hack" from my misguided and futile attempts to convince RS to not waste credibility that could be used to sway moderates in elections that actually matter, is beyond me. "Stupid" at this point I would agree with.

that in retrospect we would take back. I think if President Bush reconsidered that "Bring 'em on!" statement he would not say it today.

I think Mr. Hackett makes a point in saying that the above statement was not helpful to winning the war against the insurgency. Labeling it as 'stupid' is over-the-top. I see it a unnecessary bravado and a little insensitive to the families back here who have loved ones in Iraq.

There are many other points you could have cited but I think this is not the most compelling reason for not voting for him.

I eagerly await the outcome of Ohio's 2nd Congressional District race.

I was hoping Traficant would surface in this discussion. It's interesting how sorry Ohio politics is getting across the board, state and national (Taft, DeWine, Voinovich, and on and on) and Schmidt is a basic uninvolved local rep..

Fine as it goes so far, but Hackett, while he cuts a figure, is about the last choice as a party building candidate. He's John Edwards all over again. What effect will Edwards have on North Carolina politics for the next decade or two? (crickets chirping).

The most prominent democrat who seems to be taking on the task is Corzine. Springer could be the guy for Ohio, but they're really having an effort into dragging him back.

This is NOT proof of moral turpitude, but it is the kind of waffling which can frustrate people. Are you familiar with the 'Coingate' issue in Ohio right now? Google "Ohio coingate" for some (highly lefty-biased) links to the issue. In any event, when asked whether she had any contacts or connection to the lead guy in the mini-scandal, she claimed she had never met him and didn't know he who he was.  

When will politicians learn not to say, "I never" did anything? lol

Hackett came out with documents showing she testified before a committee with Noe sitting there, and a year later the reverse took place: Noe testified before a committee she was on.

A whole lot of "ooh gotcha" and certainly no proof of that Schmidt had or has done anything wrong, but this type of attempted and blatantly false distancing can leave a bad taste in some people's mouths.  I think this is the type of thing the original poster had in mind in terms of why we may not wish to automatically champion every (R) running.

it's verbotten for RS to endorse a candidate that reflects poorly on the RS mission?  Am I reading you right?  If so could you kindly point out your dissensions at Dkos for them backing a "centrist" Democrat?  Much appreciated.

Erik, to say that Hackett is one of those rare democrats who have enlisted and gone to Iraq is wrong and dangerous. There are many soldiers in Iraq who are fighting along with Republicans and deserve the same amount of respect. You cannot say you support the troops if you don't support all the troops, otherwise make yourself clear and say I support only troops who are Republican or support our President. It puts those who are saying they are proud to be an American in a bad light when you say only in rare instances do Democrats volunteer to fight in this war. This government is divided enough with partisan politics, lets not divide our fighting soldiers with labels of left-wing or right-wing. If you don't agree with his policies, say so. Do not throw personal attacks on his service in the Marines.