August 03, 2005

When is Losing not Losing?

Why when you're the Democratic party, of course. The party of "we've got everything backwards" seems to not be able to tell a win from a loss in this latest congressional race. The AP hosts the story this morning in which Democrats claim a victory in Ohio (why is it always Ohio?) even though their candidate only recieved 47% of the vote. And why did they claim a victory? Because their candidate managed to get 47% of the vote, up from 29% for the last joker they tried to run in that district. Of course there were a number of contributing factors. After warning Bush in the last election that using Iraq and 9/11 would be playing dirty pool, they disregard their own rules and hype their own candidate as a seven month Iraqi war "veteran." Not only that, but the man is a rabid Bush-hater, coming out with statments like the following:

He drew attention to the race with his flame-throwing assaults on Bush, namely for the president's July 2003 "bring 'em on" comment about Iraqi insurgents. Hackett called the comment "most incredibly stupid comment" he ever heard a president make, and said it "cheered on the enemy."

Oh yeah. Calling them "Minutemen" certainly wouldn't cheer the enemy, now would it? Calling our own soldiers (in which Hackett would be lumped) Getstapo, or Pol Pot wouldn't cheer the enemy soldiers on now would it? Publicly stating your wishes that our troops would die certainly wouldn't cheer our enemies on, would it? Trying to say that everything the President does is wrong and creating a huge rift within this country wouldn't do anything to cheer the terrorists on at all, now would it? All those and more are things that have been done by the Democrats. And yet they want to choose one instance and latch on it. Worry it like a dog with a bone. And then they can't even choose anything that might have real substance.

This race is a harbringer of what is to come in 2006. We're going to see more and more attacks on our President as the Democrats attempt to sling mud in the general direction of the people whom they are running against. We're going to see the wedges of diviseness driven even deeper into our communities as they attempt to portray how "evil" the Republicans are. They count the Ohio race as a victory because they played dirty, smear politics and came close to a win. Of course they also fail to account that most of their runners will NOT be associated with the Iraq war and will be running against an incumbent. But the "reality-based" community will continue to see only what they want and continue to play the kind of dirty pool that divides this great nation and loses them elections. To them, I say "Bring it on!" Because the more of this junk you try, the more support, and elections, you're going to lose. Just think, you might could have had a victory in Ohio if you hadn't been spewing hate.

Posted by: Drew at 04:30 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Scary, isn't it - how one guy who runs solely on a platform of his military service and his opposition to the war can come so close. A guy who hasn't claimed one single position on one single social issue. Is he pro or anti abortion? Is he pro or anti gay marriage? What is his stance on property rights for Ohioans? What ideas does he have to ease taxes. For state welfare? How does he feel about unions - Ohio is a big manufacturing state. Plans or ideas for Social Security? No one seems to know. Look at this website. He doesn't answer any of these questions. He complains a lot. That's about it. Republicans better get a clue and I hope they watched this race very closely.

Posted by: Oyster at August 03, 2005 06:37 AM (YudAC)

2 You're right, but I also think the fact that he wasn't battling an incumbent helped matters somewhat. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing if you put this Dem up against an incumbent Republican, he would have gotten the requisite 21% just like all the Dems before him. At least that's what I'm hoping. Either way, you're right. Republicans need to stand up and take notice now.

Posted by: Drew at August 03, 2005 06:53 AM (Ml8z/)

3 He did pretty well. See that's what I'm worried about. I didn't have to vote for him and hey obnoxious statements I'm like the king of that when I don't watch myself or feel bad. Yep that's my natural state ornery little punk. If this guy could have watched his mouth ,oh god I'm like so empathetic, he may have done a bit better. In my opinion she was the better candidate from what I know but see his was a heavily conservative district so the fact that this guy did well even with the ornery statements gives me a bit of foreboding for my party next Nov. I've been bitching about the fact that the middle so often ends up not participting on election day and then whines all year afterward. Maybe the middle is waking up to the fact that if they don't vote they hjave no right to whine about it. I vote so I'll whine bitch complain grouch gripe but I'll try and keep it to a minumum when I can but some times I fall back into my natural state of ornery little punk.

Posted by: Howie at August 03, 2005 08:55 AM (D3+20)

4 One more thought, It's not about the war. It may seem that way but it's not. The London bombings have taken care of that. It's the domestic bull in a china shop stuff. At least it is for me.

Posted by: Howie at August 03, 2005 09:59 AM (D3+20)

5 In this politically correct world, he did not "lose". This is known as just "deferred success."

Posted by: Jerry Burns at August 03, 2005 10:25 AM (sYhjT)

6 Schmidt is a tax and spend Republican that didn't play well with the base. The Club for Growth took a pass on her. So she started out as damaged goods. In a special election it's mostly the base that votes. Given all the lies, the deceit, she still won. The Rs need to get a better stronger candidate for 2006, that much is clear. The Republicans need to realize they must field good candidates.

Posted by: tarpon at August 03, 2005 10:35 AM (QJhZY)

7 Republicans who run as conservatives should govern as conservatives if they want to win again. It just cannot be said enough.

Posted by: Brent at August 03, 2005 04:20 PM (Ltkej)

8 Give a (D)umbassrat enough rope and they'll hang themselves *smirk* is hoping they do a bad thing ?

Posted by: Jonathan at August 03, 2005 07:52 PM (wdVtc)

9 His mouth and playing to the hate Bush crowd lost it for him. He was obviously playing for the black vote, the anti-Bush vote, the anti-so called war vote. Not proud that he is an EX-Marine.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 06, 2005 07:20 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
22kb generated in CPU 0.0423, elapsed 0.3515 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.305 seconds, 248 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.