Loading ...
Schmidt’s win show Republicans as strong as ever
National Politics Comments (0)
In The Best of the Web Today, James Taranto somewhat misses the mark in A Squeaker in Ohio. He says:
Does Hackett’s near-victory portend a Democratic tide? We won’t know until November 2006, but we’d guess he’s more of a one-off–a candidate like Eisenhower, Clinton or Schwarzenegger, who is able to prevail (or, in Hackett’s case, come close to prevailing) against the political tides by dint of a compelling biography or a strong personality.
I think that Hackett’s loss in Ohio – 2 is much, much bigger than the Democrats care to admit. This is a race that they really should have won. Here’s why:
First of all, the easiest pickings are Hackett’s “compelling biography.” The man served in the Marine Corps in command of a civil affairs unit. To put it somewhat less than delicately, he was a Public Relations hack for the military. On top of this, he’s an attorney. The man is a pro at the use of words. You would expect such a person to do well in running for office.
When you add in gross exaggerations as Max Cleland did in Blue Ash (“Someone who has led on the battlefield, that’s the kind of person you want to see in the United States Congress,” Mr. Cleland said at a rally in Blue Ash.”) then you see that the “compelling biography” moves from page-turner to almost must-see-TV.
More importantly, though, Ohio – 2 was, for the first time in forty years, vulnerable to loss thanks to Ohio’s “Coingate” scandal. This is the biggest difference in the district between Rob Portman getting more than 70%, President Bush getting more than 60% of the vote in recent elections and yesterday’s vote. Even though the links between Ms. Schmidt and Noe are of the brother’s-friend’s-sister’s-husband’s-cousin’s-great-aunt-twice-removed variety, Hackett was able to play up the scandal surrounding the Republicans in Ohio’s state house and her supposed links to it — something made all the stronger by the fact that she was a state rep at the time.
Even with overwhelming margins in other elections (and really Portman’s numbers here are far more important than the President’s), Ohio-2 was ripe for picking by Democrats, thanks mainly to a scandal. That they couldn’t quite pick the fruit is telling as to the relative strength of that party. Given how they have played up Schmidt’s insider status and supposed ties to “Coingate” her election could well be compared to Richard M. Nixon winning a fictious Presidential re-re-election bid in 1974 in the wake of Watergate.
The far more significant news, then, is that the Democrats weren’t able to pick up a seat in a special election with a good candidate and a candidate in opposition weighted down be being less charismatic, less photogenic, and scandal-ridden. Safe seat or not. That means that Hackett isn’t a “one-off candidate” because, like Eisenhower, Clinton, and Ah-nald he’s personable, if ribald, has a good story and takes a good picture. Certainly he’s personable, has a good story, and takes a good picture, but the somewhat-less-than-astute Jimmy Carter was able to help Democrats pick up a large number of seats in 1974 and he’s considerably less photogenic than Hackett.
So, will OH-2 be in play in next year’s midterm elections? I think not. By then Coingate will have played itself out. This will remove the taint from Rep. Schmidt that helped Hackett. Plus, she’ll be running as an imcumbent in the majority party.
MickC @ August 3, 2005