Home › Blogs › Ironman's blog ›

A 2010 resolution: No more Oberweis/Jenkins style candidates

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 22:15
in

A lot of old time Republican senators have decided to hang up their cleats, or may decide to do so in the coming months.

Already deciding to retire are Mel Martinez (Florida); Sam Brownback (Kansas) and this week Kit Bond (Missouri).

There is also a rumor on RedState that Ohio's George Voinovich may step down at term's end.    

All things being equal, we are usually better off running an incumbent, but unless we adopt a Weekend at Bernie's  strategy the day will come to replace incumbents.

The future of the Republican party will depend on who gets to step up in these races.

 

In 2007 and 2008 we faced the very dispiriting picture of a whole bunch of old establishment WASP retreads trying to win special elections.  Candidates like Woody Jenkins and Jim Oberweis are simply not going to get it done in the 21st century, if for no other reason than they lost too many elections in the 20th Century. 

The Republican party does a great job of rewarding the "next guy in line" with valuable nominations. That rule needs to be repealed, pronto. (adios Doug Forrester)

We need to nominate people who are going to appeal to a less politicized, and perhaps less partisan era, but one which is full of the angry middle class independents who energized the Ross Perot movement a couple of decades ago.

Now I'm not an expert in the internal dynamics of the Florida and Missouri Republican parties, but I'd be inclined to nominate a younger candidate or a female candidate rather than candidates who may have had their best days in the 1990's or were part of the inept House GOP leadership.

We need to change the "face"' of the party. The new face may have some folks who are moderates, or have no political background, or who are authentic conservative activists. But it can't be more old time insiders , and expecting the voters who have been rejecting these people en masse to going to turn around and embrace them.

One other note. We need to figure this out in the off-year and coalesce around one viable candidate in each state. One thing we must avoid is another debacle like New Mexico last year; where Pete Dominici retired, both GOP House members ran for the seat in a bloody primary, and we proceeded to lose both House seats. You couldn;t screw that up worse if you tried. So let's not try.

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

I recall how the left netroots started out

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 22:45.

I seem to recall that when the nutroots just began, they tried to field candidates as well.  They weren't terribly successful at first because their type of candidates were to the left of...well, pretty much everyone.  But their power and influence slowly grew until the Democrat Party moved leftward to accommodate them.  I think we might have to pursue a similar strategy.  We pick a few districts here and there in which the GOP establishment has unwisely chosen to anoint the "next person in line" rather than a candidate that is more in line with conservative values and philosophy, and we run a primary challenger.  It takes a bit of focus and savvy, because we can't really do it everywhere, but there's a possibility that we can make a name for ourselves and make the GOP stand up and listen that we will not let vague undefined terms like "electability" trump principles and values.

That's giving them more credit than they deserve

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 05:18.

The Left netroots' biggest success to date has been defeating Joe Lieberman in the primary.

Edwards was their man.  Obama, for the most part, never acknowledged them.

Still, there's that focus on the national level.  I think that involving more people at the state level might be more effective. 

snu? I'd say that the leftroot's biggest success

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 14:15.

was Ford in Tennessee. But then again, I'm a strategy afficianado -- and did you see that ad on 911 phone calls? Pure genius. Let me know what you see in the background.

Edwards and Obama had about equal levels of support, for a very very long time. They are both anti-establishment figures, each in their own ways. I believe we as a country got the better guy, if you had to choose between them.

Ford was a good candidate...

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 22:59.

and had Corker been another Woody Jenkins, we'd have lost that seat,too. Thankfully, Corker is a pretty effective guy.

Ya know, I'd have rather had Harold Ford in the Senate than Linc Chafee; and the GOP spent millions on Chafee.  

the democrats have been pulling flanking strategies

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 01/13/2009 - 11:57.

wherever you run a stupid candidate, eventually the Democrats win. Be it Mean Jean (I hope she's safe from that accident, btw) in ohio, or the man that everyone hates in Idaho.

Personally, I'm all in favor of getting the people who shouldn't be in politics out of politics (have you seen Paul v.s. Bernanke? that's a hoot). There are some people who lack the vital interpersonal skills to serve in a congressional body.

With a 41 seat republican senate, look for the netroots to be using other strategies, particularly in their bend to unseat Spector, who is in a dilly of a pickle.

because Tester and Webb are so LEFT

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 14:13.

keep talking. The netroots (left version) ran people in all states, and was very happy to get Kissel elected in Carolina this year. They've pumped a lot of money into Denny Hastert's old seat, etc.

I do think that what you're talking about is something possible and has much potential. I just think that to say "let's just do what the leftroots did" and then not be talkign about what they did is kinda... wrong.

A few points

Submitted by Cahnman on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 22:59.

1) 'The Republican party does a great job of rewarding the "next guy in line" with valuable nominations.'

see: McCain, John

2) I don't know anything about him, but that Fla. Speaker of the House guy looks fantastic on paper.

3) Mega ditto's on New Mexico.  On the other hand, it does suggest some easy pickup opportunities next time.

Another Legacy of the Bush Administration

Submitted by superdestroyer on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 09:19.

The Repubican Party has a lack of quality candidates because both Bush Administrationed refused to develop the next generation of candidates. Look at how many Demcorats who worked in the Clinton Administration are now in the elected office versus how anyone who worked in either Bush Administration is marked as a complete failures and cannot run for office.

Hmm...

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 12:06.

Does that include former Bush admin assistant Sec'y of HHS Bobby Jindal?

Jindal got out fast enough

Submitted by superdestroyer on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 14:04.

JIndal got out fast enough before being tarred with the incompetence, stupidity, and failures of the Bush Administration. If Jindal had waited until 2010 to run for government, he would have had no chance of winning.

Besides, only the Democrats in La could make the Bush Admnisttration look competent.

Ok, then...

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 14:27.

...how about former Bush Agriculture Sec'y Sen. Mike Johans?

Johans was governor before being Sec. Ag

Submitted by superdestroyer on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 15:41.

Once again, Johans is the type of candidates that proves the conclusion.  He has been elected to statewide office before being involved in the Bush Administration.  He is definitely not an example of the next generation who should have been getting experience in a Bush Admnistration.  

What about...

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 16:46.

...former Bush Budget Director Mitch Daniels?

Once again, he got out quick

Submitted by superdestroyer on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 16:55.

As long as you keeping pointing out people who were smart enough to run away from the Bush administration after 18 months in DC.  Please keep  finding people who left DC and 2003 and ran for office in 2004.  Of course, the netroots will have a field day if Mitch Daniels ran for president.  Does anyone really want someone from OMB who served in an administration who added over $5 trillion to the national debt and where the OMB aruged that tax cuts pay for themsleves when all they really did was add to the national debt.

I'm not keen on Mitch Daniels

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 19:16.

since he sorta fits that "tired old WASP" persona, but he did get the most votes of any candidate in Indiana history.

SD, some of us are looking forward. Gawking at the wreck in the rear view doesn;t keep the car on the road. 

Ironman, it has nothing to do with...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 14:23.

...age, race, gender or good looks.  It's all about aggressive leadership and wisdom.  There is nothing that resembles that within the GOP right now.   The political apparatus within the party does not allow any sort of aggressive leadership.  Its either blocked or, I believe in the case of FDT, sabotaged.  The GOP Hierarchy and those who fund it do not want their candidates to be sympathetic or focused on the Base.  They want to keep candidates focused in the opposite direction - on them.  With their back toward the Base.  And they've been very successful, so far.  Why? Because those who have a bloody pulpit refuse to single these scoundrels out and purge them from influence within the party.  DD

WASP establishment retreads either....

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 14:31.

a) are so establishment oriented they have turned off the base...or

b) are so doctrinaire on policy grounds they can;t appeal beyond the base; especially in a nation where aging WASPs are a declining demographic group.

Neither works for me.

Lotta' good Protestants out there...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 22:09.

...and I disagree that the ones causing the problems are establishment oriented.  On the contrary the problem is the transnational progressives that have a choke hold on our GOP.  The 59.9 million strong GOP Base is establishment oriented and want to rein in those trying to open our nation up to extreme global influences.  But the GOP is in full resistance and that resistance is not led by white Anglo/Saxons or Protestants.  I don't think it would be wise for any faction of the GOP to begin to attack groups based on their skin pigment, culture, age or religious preferences.  That tactic is only going to drive even more voters away.  Plus there's a lot of good old GOP wasp's out there who have an abundance of wisdom, savvy, knowledge, etc.  Look at what wasp's have managed to put together over the last couple of hundred years.  You're going to need them Ironman and they're going to need you.  Those that we need to attack are those who, for what ever reason, are attempting to diminish and shove our Constitution aside  and  increase influence upon our own government by NGO's and other hostile global entities.  DD

I didn't have folks like say, Tom Coburn, in mind

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 22:39.

The point is DD, that it is hard to attract people to an out of power party when it presents "establishment" candidates.  If you don;t look or act different than "politics as usual" the voters will decide it's not worth their while to oust the Democrat. And yes, one can be an establishment politician without being a WASP male; a George Pataki comeback in NY state or a Christie Todd Whitman rebound in NJ  would be a fool's errand even if they were to profess now to be born-again conservatives..

Perhaps my views are skewed by living in the Northeast, where as a matter of simple mathematics you are advantaged by running a candidate with ethnic appeal, but the sorts of people I have in mind didn't do well even in the less diverse parts of the country in '06 or '08. Sadly, the President-elect is living proof that the more visibly "not George W. Bush" one appears, the more popular one is in the present and foreseeable political environment.

 

It sounds good...

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 04:55.

...but it's wrong.

Identity politics is the field of the far Left.  Has been since the early to mid 70's.

We should never stoop to that level. 

I'm reality based...

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 07:34.

You need to deal with the fact that in a nation where WASP males are what.....15-20% of the electorate....making "experienced WASP male" the default  candidate selection is suboptimal for the GOP.

Consider LA 2. Identity politics would be finding a black nominee against Jefferson whether he was particularly excited about running or talented.  Old boy GOP politics would be to find some tired old white guy who had labored for decades on behalf of the party and rewarding him with the nomination as a reward for loyal service. Neither would have worked.

While the Vietnamese population of NOLA, while not nonexistant, helped Cao; the bigger point is I'm sure a certain quantum of non-Republican voters gave his candidacy greater consideration because he did not resemble their view of a "typical Republican'. 

We've decided we need a "Next Right"; partially because the image of the Last Right is akin to Judge Smales from Caddyshack. 

I can agree w/that to a degree...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 15:47.

...but I tell you, you could still take a typical wasp male, wrinkled and bald, beer gut, smoking a ceegar and if that person boldly spoke truth on all issues, didn't back down, didn't apologize, held his ground and went on the attack, well he would not only get the 59.9 million votes that McCain/Palin got but would also draw in the (and this is my opinion) 10 million or so exasperated, estranged former GOP voting conservatives that opted to stay at home on 11/7/06 and 11/4/08.  Plus he'd draw a few million away from the dem's.   But this "candidate" could also be a hot brunette from Alaska.  Or a Black single Mom from DC.  Doesn't matter what they look like.  Its what comes out of their mouth.

But what do we get instead?  We get some well groomed guy/gal that speaks with measured/genteel rhetoric and never departs from the standard, conventional GOP talking points.  No passion or boldness.   And I suppose that's what you are opposed to, Ironman?  Well so am I.  I had so hoped that we were going to get that from FDT. But it didn't happen.  Not that he's not capable but, I have my own beliefs as to  why he fizzled. DD

Shameless Self-Promotion

Submitted by Cahnman on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 14:30.

My own take on good Senate Candidates can be found here.

here's hoping

Submitted by stl on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 22:42.

I hope some bright bulbs in the Republican party are thinking of ways to counter-act:

The Secretary of State project

ProPublica

And other leftist games.

And can figure out a training program to teach new candidates Milton Friedman, Von Mises and Von Hyeck.  Teach new candidates Heritage Organization white papers. 

We have to take back the language.  Fairness should not be ceded to the Left.  Fairness is a Conservative value.  Equity is not achieved through the Left.  We have lost these arguments, largely (I think) by not appearing to have skin in the game. 

We projected a image of Managerial Competence...well that didn't get us very far.

 

 

The Left is so wrong on every subject, it is only through abdication that they win.

GOP needs dramatic improvement in Senate races

Submitted by ebohnet on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 23:29.

I don't see any particular pattern to failed GOP senate candidates except that there have been far too many of them. The GOP should have an enormous advantage in the Senate because most of the small states are solid Republican, and the Senate is the one place where winning the Dakotas counts as much as winning California and New York. When the parties split the popular vote evenly at the Presidential level, the GOP wins 30 states - W's total in 2000. Even in a bad year, John McCain carried 22 states. When Dukakis suffered a pretty similar size loss in the popular vote he carried only 10 states. So the GOP should be able to average around 60 senate seats if it can win states in senate races with the same frequency it wins them in Presidential elections.

But it consistently and severely underperforms its potential in the Senate. Right now there are three states that voted for McCain but have two Democratic senators (ND, Ark, WV). I count seven other McCain states that split their Senate representation so that the 22 McCain states - states that voted Republican in a strong Democratic year - favor the GOP in the Senate by only 31-13. In contrast, the 19 Kerry states and 20 Gore states are each sending only 4 or 5 (depending on the Minnesota litigation) Republicans to the Senate, and three of them are Arlen Spector and the two Maine RINOs.

Part of the problem is that our incumbents tend to retire earlier, leaving us with more open seats to defend. But we have also had a huge disparity in incumbent elections. Once Democrats get in, they can pretty much stay as long as they want. The last year we beat more than two of their incumbents was 1980. But our incumbents are far more vulnerable - we've lost 16 incumbents since 2000. Their ranks have included a few crooks (Stevens) and folks who tried to stay too long (though that never seems to hurt Democrats), but also quite a few stars like Jim Talent, George Allen, John Sununu, Spence Abraham, Elizabeth Dole and John Ashcroft.

I'm not sure why we have done so poorly in Senate races, but they are the races where we have the longest history of under-performance.

Stars

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 04:45.

but also quite a few stars like Jim Talent, George Allen, John Sununu, Spence Abraham, Elizabeth Dole and John Ashcroft

With all due respect, noone on that list is a star.  With the possible exception of Sununu, they're all hacks.

 

Agreed, partially

Submitted by Paleo-Skeptic on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 05:14.

I'm familiar with Talent & Ashcroft.  Sununu I know from the news, and I always thought he represented what was wrong with the GOP.

Talent is the wrong kind of Republican for Missouri.  Ashcroft is a bit closer, but still a bit off.

Talent beat Jay Nixon (now governor) in a squeaker.

Not saying Talent is useless (but close).  He would probably do better in a cabinet position.

Claire McCaskill was a fairly popular prosecutor in Kansas City, but not known in most of the state.  She's a centrist Democrat, not a DLCer (like Russ Carnahan).  The people would rather have a centrist Democrat than someone too far to the right (and rightly or wrongly, Ashcroft helped in building that image that Missouri's senators were too far to the right).

I'm proud of myself in that I helped to send Sam Graves back to Congress.

Sam Graves would be a much better candidate for the Senate than Jim Talent.

Talent has the image of a yes-man, so compliant that he can't think for himself.  His appeal is more to the southern part of the state, around the Ozarks.

Graves is a farmer (4th generation, I believe), a fiscal conservative.  He ran against Kay Barnes, once mayor of KC.  Barnes went on a building spree to develop downtown, and financed it with bonds, leaving the city with a huge amount of debt, and at a time when they will be required to replace a large part of the water & sewer systems.  And mind you, this was at a time when we had a very unpopular Republican governor.

The issue is with ideology, not identity.  I have a feeling that Missouri would elect either one of the Senators from Maine.  They want someone to the right, but not too far to the right. 

you can live without sewers

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 01/12/2009 - 14:22.

it would cost over a billion here to fix ours. never gonna happen, I believe.

In 2007 and 2008 we faced the

Submitted by Woolly Mammoth on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 00:43.

In 2007 and 2008 we faced the very dispiriting picture of a whole bunch of old establishment WASP retreads trying to win special elections.  Candidates like Woody Jenkins and Jim Oberweis are simply not going to get it done in the 21st century, if for no other reason than they lost too many elections in the 20th Century.

Your overall point is valid, but Jim Oberweis never even ran for office in the twentieth century.  He was approached to run for the first time in late summer 2002.

I thought he had been a frequent unsuccessful bidder

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 07:21.

If he wore out his welcome in five years, well, that does prove my point about him being unsaleable, though.

Excellent post!

Submitted by NoMoreBlatherDotCom on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 16:41.

While at first I was worried about the fact that "Oberweis" is actually a German and not a WASP name, and also by the fact that he was smeared by those echt WASPs due to his (admittedly not very slick) opposition to illegal activity, I now see the light. Here are some other proposals:

1. Land reform for war veterans.
2. The GOP should adopt a full, Gramscian-friendly platform.
3. Quotas, quotas, quotas!

Note that my words carry more weight than others, as I am an Ethnic-American.

A 2010 Resolution

Submitted by Chris L. on Sun, 01/11/2009 - 22:10.

 Excellent points.  But don't hold your breath waiting for this kind of sensibility.