2nd District (OH) Primary Prattle (061105)

An Independent Threat?

NixGuy caught a Howard Wilkinson Enquirer item reporting that:

Anderson Township Trustee Russ Jackson is so opposed to having Pat DeWine as the Republican party’s nominee for Congress that he is circulating petitions to run as an independent should DeWine win Tuesday’s GOP primary.

Jackson is especially upset with DeWine because DeWine is running for Congress only months after being elected to the Hamilton County commission.

“He said that county commissioner was the job he always wanted and when he gets there, he turns around and runs for the first office that comes open,” Jackson said. “This is a question of character for me.”

I’ve been meaning to address this for some time, but the criticism seemed so petty that it’s hard to take it seriously. But since others are, I will, and here are my points:

• I happen to believe that Rob Portman knew darn well that if George Bush won in November he would be appointed Trade Rep. Portman ran for reelection anyway; though I’m not thrilled with it, it’s the way things are done in politics.
• If DeWine had known what I believe Portman knew, perhaps he would not have run for his “dream (local) job” and would have sat out the November election.
• So I just don’t see how you blame DeWine for not being telepathic about the Portman Trade Rep deal.

Now I can understand why a person might decide not to vote for DeWine in the primary. He’s less than ideal in many ways. But what I think I’m seeing from Mr. Jackson and some (not all) Republicans in the “social values” camp is the use of the County Commissioner issue as a convenient fig leaf to avoid having to bring out their real objection, which in a nutshell is “he cheated on his wife, ban him for life.” Courage, Mr. Jackson. Tell us what you really think.

Ill-Informed Outside Money is Inherently Funny

I’ve taken plenty of shots at Bob McEwen for his excessive use of endorsements by conservative outsiders who can’t possibly know that they are endorsing the best conservative candidate. Well it seems the Club for Growth (CFG) has fallen into the same trap, and I’m just as unhappy about that. Their takedown of Jean Schmidt on the 1% sales tax vote was at least in the neighborhood of accurate as far as she was concerned, and their conclusion that a few other candidates (DeWine, Brinkman and McEwen) were definitely better seemed at least to have a basis (for DeWine and Brinkman) based on voting records.

Now it’s true that BizzyBlog called David Keating of CFG and complained that they had little basis for calling Bob McEwen a tax hawk, since he hasn’t been in office for 12 years, did vote for at least one tax increase when in Washington, and had a “pork for me and not for thee” reputation when he was in Congress. Perhaps that call had a teeny-tiny role in modifying CFG’s stance away from McEwen.

But that doesn’t make me happy that CFG has all but endorsed Tom Brinkman (and dissed DeWine) solely on the vote against that (apparently temporary) sales tax increase that Schmidt supported. Brinkman’s anti-tax record is indeed stellar, but I don’t think you can prove to me that at least a few of his opponents won’t be just as fiercely anti-tax. I realize that besides DeWine, I have to plumb the second tier of the race to support my point, but that doesn’t change its validity, and doesn’t change the fact that CFG is pretending to know more than it does when it lends its sole support to Brinkman.

To further clarify, even though CFG’s Brinkman quasi-endorsement is from his standpoint a gift from heaven, I would hope that he might point out that while the CFG ad is nice, perhaps they aren’t all-knowing about every 2nd District candidate from their Beltway perch. And yes, BizzyBlog acknowledges that this is a subtle and bit more stringent position on outside influence than the one taken at the third point at this post.

A belated “Thanks for noticing, and asking”

Ohio 2nd Blog made a BizzyBlog reference in regards to this incident at Tuesday’s forum: “Favorite Moment: Bob McEwen pulling out evidence from his breast pocket showing that he was exonerated by the Justice Department in the House check cashing scandal as soon as I asked him about it. He pleaded ignorance to the bruhaha from BizzyBlog but sure had that sucker at the ready” (I must ask, was the word “BizzyBlog” uttered in public at a candidates’ forum? Be still my heart.)

In fairness, I suspect the media carpet-bombing on the House Bank Scandal from the DeWine camp was a bigger factor, but then again, you have to ask where they got the idea (hmmm).

More on that McEwen Lobbying Article in Saturday’s Enquirer

It seems I’m not the only person wondering about divided loyalty (bolds are mine):

While it’s not unusual for a former member of Congress to earn money from speeches or become a lobbyist, it is unusual for that former member to attempt a comeback.

Ross Baker, a Rutgers University specialist on Congress, said that in McEwen’s case, it’s fair game for voters to ponder whether he’ll serve their needs or those of his former clients or businesses who have paid him for lobbying or speeches.

“You’ve got to reassure people that you are not going to go back there and be a messenger boy for special interests,” Baker said.

McEwen said his background as a lobbyist is just like candidates who are lawyers and have clients or who are businessmen and have associates, and said it wouldn’t be a problem.

Yeah, Bob, but lawyers who live here and work here would for the most part have clients who live here or at least have business here, and you can at least argue that helping them out would help the local and regional economy. How many of Advantage’s clients are from around here?

And finally, why did the potential conflict-of-interest issue not make an appearance in the local newspapers (that I know of, correct me if I’m wrong) until three days before the primary?