One More Look at All This Schmidt
This was a classic case of someone doing essentially the right thing (”right” in the sense of what a person believes and what reflects the beliefs of the majority of constituents), screwing up on some of the details and delivery, and benefiting from the conduct of his/her opponents.
The scenario was all too typical:
- Person delivers the “right” message (in the sense noted above) and gets some of the details and delivery wrong.
- Person is perceived as having had an impact on the ultimate result by supporters and opponents.
- Vocal opponents (in this particular case, predominantly a combination of the moonbat left and some spiteful folks on the right) sense opportunity, pile on, get personal, hurl the insults, make the person an object of ridicule, and ultimately vastly overplay their hand.
- Mainstream Media attempts to pick up the memes and turns controversy into a he-said-she-said with an undercurrent of the ridicule in an attempt (ultimately unsuccessful) to take the focus away from the underlying news.
- As a result of the above “Don’t call my baby ugly syndrome” kicks in, as person’s supporters and natural philosophical defenders rally around him/her.
- Person ends up either in about the same place, or somewhat stronger, as a result.
A similar but not identical scenario played out in the second half of President Clinton’s first term, except that in his case conservative elements overplayed their hand and squandered the advantage they had after the 1994 election. Even a lot of the Mainstream Media had essentially given up on Clinton after that debacle, but the Talk Radio pile-on, including the “Clinton is irrelevant” meme that developed, put the Left into “don’t call my baby ugly” syndrome and eventually picked up the sympathies of many moderates. Ultimate result: Clinton re-elected.
How much different would the Schmidt situation have turned out if the ridicule and intense level of personal insult hadn’t occurred? We’ll never know. We’ll probably never know in any other future controversy involving a politician, because personal insult and over-the-top without-foundation ridicule are, from all appearances, a permanent part of the political landscape, never mind that they are usually not effective, and ultimately often end up helping the intended victim in the end, as I believe may have been the case here.
There is a big difference between satire and exposure, and even vitriol, all of which I believe are perfectly within bounds, and ridicule and attacks that are either not based on the truth or twist it like a pretzel. Schmidt’s opponents in my view went too far, and caused a situation that could have done her harm to either be neutralized or slightly work out in her favor.
___________________
UPDATE: As if the far left hasn’t done enough to hurt itself in the past week–The Cincinnati Post (HT S.O.B. Alliance member Weapons of Mass Destruction) reports today that MoveOn.org wants to build up Jean Schmidt some more by running ads against her. They don’t see it that way of course, but that’s what will happen. MoveOn will make it even more certain that by May, Republicans who had nothing to do with the 2005’s primary and special election the 2nd District, a number that I believe is greater than the number who participated, will be saying “Oh, Jean Schmidt….she’s the one that gave the ‘don’t cut-and-run’ speech in the House that the media made fun of. Gutsy woman. She has my vote.”
(Note: I’m not saying this is right or wrong, it’s just how I see it playing out.)
All they’re doing is making her a bigger and bigger deal, which would keep Bob McEwen from pulling the seniority card if he were to run.
When’s the last time McEwen was invited to meet the troops in a warzone?
Comment by Eric Kephas — November 23, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
The rally cry I hear all over is “You Go Girl”
Comment by Tom — November 23, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
This is the first place I’ve seen anyone suggest unfortunate incident has actually helped her. She embarrassed herself and her party on floor of the House, and next she got caught lying about the comments Col. Bubp had actually relayed to her. And now, she’s cutting and running from the public like the coward she accuses others of being. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid!
I hate to say it, but Bob McEwen is actually looking pretty good right now. And that’s coming from someone who feels like he has to shower after saying that. I’d rather have an unethical conservative representing me than an even more unethical tax-hiker who’s embarrassing us everytime she makes the news.
As for MoveOn.hitler and Schmidt, how fitting. On one side you have a vicious mentality, a lack of intellect which resorts to making personal attacks instead of substantive arguments, and support for massive tax hikes. And on the other side, you have a vicious mentality, a lack of intellect which resorts to making personal attacks instead of substantive arguments, and support for massive tax hikes. A battle between Schmidt and MoveOn is like a battle between a pig and a hog.
Comment by CincyJeff — November 23, 2005 @ 6:51 pm
#3, No Kool-Aid here CJ, and you should know better, based on comments at a previous post. It is as I said, “just how I see it playing out.” I’ve seen it happen SO many times. Another was Hillary’s Senate run in 2000. She got ripped by the Right and deserved a lot, but not all of it. The press concentrated on the “not all” part and she got the sympathy of NY Dems even though she’s not from there!
I think the fact that she’s going to Iraq means that someone out there likes her. I suppose you might think it’s because she needs bucking up, but why would they waste their time doing that for an 80-day freshman?
Take consolation that my assessment and 79 cents will get you a Junior Hamburger at Wendy’s (drive-up and carry-out only), and let’s see what ultimately happens in May and November 2006. K?
Comment by TBlumer — November 23, 2005 @ 6:57 pm
Al Franken and Hillary Clinton went to Iraq too. As for Hillary’s Senate race, I’m not sure where you get the comparison.
Schmidt’s own words, not the condemnation of others, is what got her in trouble. Schmidt’s own lies about Col. Bubp’s actual statement, not the condemnation of others, is what’s keeping her in trouble. Schmidt’s own ‘cut and run’ act, not the condemnation of others, is helping to keep this alive.
The most worthwhile Schmidt-Hillary comparison (besides their mutual love of higher taxes), is that both these incidents show that the Rabid Left and Rabid Right alike make the mistake of thinking their Slam Everyone parties represent the 90% of the rest of the country. Schmidt’s tirade and lies help us no more than Howard Dean’s tirades help them.
Comment by CincyJeff — November 23, 2005 @ 7:05 pm
#5, If you’ve been checking I deleted #3 because it was virtually the same as the first two paras of what was #4 for a little while.
This post is tapped out.
Comment by TBlumer — November 23, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
I completely agree with the overall assessment and will add my .02 cents about why schmidt is now in a stronger position.
Previous to this there were questions about Schmidt’s being a RINO because of attacks from club for growth, brinkman, and association with Taft.
There is now no doubt that she is a fire breathing solid republican. One can disagree with whether this was a tactical error or not, but the speech was a ballsy thing to do in any circumstance. I like ballsy and so do lots of people. Republican primary voters in fact.
An example: Katherine Harris, vilified by the left, lampooned on SNL, currently a sitting US congresswoman, stronger than ever.
Ultimately, Jean Schmidt is no longer vulnerable to attacks from the right. And that is the ultimate take-away here, whatever else one may think about it.
Comment by dave — November 23, 2005 @ 8:32 pm
[…] Schmidt, stronger than ever This is cross-posted from a comment I made on Bizzyblog, who had some good final thoughts on the Schmidt matter. I completely agree with the overall assessme […]
Pingback by NixGuy.com » Blog Archive » Schmidt, stronger than ever — November 23, 2005 @ 8:35 pm
#7, I knew someone would bring up Harris at some point, because it’s a pretty decent analogy (not perfect–Harris essentially had to do what she did or break the law, but under exponentially more pressure. Schmidt didn’t have to make the one-minute speech, but still got lots of heat, nowhere near Harris.
The only thing lacking is the Robin Givhan fashion or makeup slam in the Washington Post.
Comment by TBlumer — November 23, 2005 @ 8:49 pm
Re #6 - I got you. That was my mistake. I first posted a 2 paragraph response, and right after I hit send I realized I didn’t put my email in. I made the mistake of thinking it didn’t post, so I rewrote it and added a 3rd paragraph about the MoveOn/Schmidt angle. All you did was delete my duplicate paragraphs; it now reads how it should. Thanks.
Harris was lauded by the right because she did her job. It was her job to run a clean recount and she did it, despite the ugly attacks of the Rabid Left. It was not Schmidt’s job to slur a Marine or lie about Col. Bubp’s remarks.
Comment by CincyJeff — November 23, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
#10, You’re welcome.
Para 2 re Schmidt–
Point 1 refutation:
Hysterical Left Begins Building New Lie: “She Called Murtha a Coward”
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/134502.php
Point 2: Mischaracterization for sure, we’ll never know if it’s worse, no one nailed her for it–which surprises me if it in reality crossed the line into something worse, given the enemies she has on the right who would have proven it if they could. The left wasn’t in a position to prove it crossed the line. So, venial sin until proven mortal.
See my “Nov. 22 Update (Gongwer Ohio)” at the cartoon post for a fuller explanation:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=875
Nobody’s drinking any Kool-Aid here. I’m trying to evaluate what comes of all this. If you’re not happy, prove that it’s worse than a mischaracterization.
Actually, it’s probably too late now even if there is proof (which I doubt exists). I don’t think anyone cares any more; I think the window’s closed. Again, I’m not saying that it’s right, I just think that’s the way it is.
Comment by TBlumer — November 23, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
[…]
Thu 24 Nov 2005
Your Thanksgiving Schmidt
Posted by Editor under Schmidt
BizzyBlog has some final thoughts on the whole Schmidt flap. It’s interesting how Republicans forget about […]
Pingback by Ohio 2nd » Your Thanksgiving Schmidt — November 24, 2005 @ 8:21 am
If this is the first time CJ’s seen the argument that this has helped Schmidt, he needs to take a look at virtually every other conservative blog in the 2nd District…
Comment by Eric Kephas — November 25, 2005 @ 12:54 am
Just look at Channel 9’s poll, which shows 81% with a lower opinion of Schmidt: http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/11/22/schmidt.html
What is your opinion of Jean Schmidt following her Friday comments?
More favorable
496 (10.93%)
About the same
257 (5.66%)
Less favorable
3733 (82.22%)
I don’t know what I think
54 (1.19%)
Sorry, Biz, but she was a weak candidate to start with, and she’s weaker now as a result. The buzz in DC and locally is that she is an embarrassment to the party.
Comment by Murtha's Ghost — November 26, 2005 @ 9:05 pm
#14, re the poll-unscientific, therefore meaningless. Also not of registered voters, likely voters, or even Republicans (if you’re considering the primary and not the general), and not controlled for multiple votes by the same person.
I’m registering my political observations and not rendering an opinion on her fitness or lack thereof for office. So if you think I’m “sorry” I’m wrong about my opinion, we’ll see. Otherwise, there’s nothing to be “sorry” for.
Comment by TBlumer — November 26, 2005 @ 9:20 pm
Again, your quick dismissal of the poll is premature. Anyone who spends as much time analyzing data as you do certainly must consider the staggering implications of those numbers.
When the score is nearly 4,000 to 300, it doesn’t really matter whether or not a poll is “scientific” or not… if the margin of error were in the 20% range, it’s still 60-40 against Schmidt.
The point is that people simply have a negative reaction to her when they see her speaking. A fact that isn’t going to help her come next May, especially if she’s up against a viable candidate.
Further, where this hurts Schmidt most is with less conservative Hamilton County voters - the true battleground for any primary challenge.
I take the poll as positive confirmation that Schmidt comes off looking worse, not better, to the voters in the district, particularly the ones in Hamilton County. Nothing more, nothing less.
Comment by Murtha's Ghost — November 29, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
#16, I was trying to be restrained. 30 out-of-towners from Democrat Underground could have voted once every 2 minutes for 3 hours and generated that poll result (they and FReepers see these polls and do this kind of things all the time). It’s worse than worthless. Margin of error and those kinds of things are only relevant if a poll IS scientific, not to mention that there’s no screen for whether the participant lives in the district.
Comment by TBlumer — November 29, 2005 @ 9:09 pm
Somehow I doubt anyone got together a band of 20 people and clicked that they think less of Schmidt for 3 hours.
Such a statement is beyond ridiculous. The numbers are overwhelming. Don’t forget, Schmidt could have instructed her campaign staff to spend 30 minutes voting in favor of her. Is that so preposterous? She has more to lose than anyone else in this matter.
Come on, Biz! I’m not saying we should live or die by that stupid poll. I’m just saying that it doesn’t indicate good news for Schmidt.
At any rate, if the Whistleblower is telling the truth, some real poll numbers are bound to leak in the coming days, so we’ll see, won’t we?
Comment by Murtha\'s Ghost — November 30, 2005 @ 4:57 am
Oh for God’s sake. Please take your head out the sand.
Here’s what they do at Free republic (small sample):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=freep
FR has tens of thousands of members and lurkers who can move a poll from 10-90 to 90-10 in under an hour.
The Left has similar sites with similar memberships.
It all depends on who happens to see and care about which poll.
This is why the WCPO poll is Objectively worthless.
As to McEwen’s push polling, it may yield interesting information IF, and only if, we are told what the actual script used for the calls was, so we can evaluate if it was an hones attempt to gauge public sentiment or one designed to generate a forced result. We also need to know if they called anyone in the phone book, registered voters, registered GOP, or likely voters. If we don’t know all these things, meaningful evaluation will be impossible, adn it will be just more noise.
I’m just trying to make sense of it all to the best of my abilities. If you don’t like it, don’t read. If you’r not going to give me a real e-mail addy, please don’t comment any more.
Comment by TBlumer — November 30, 2005 @ 12:16 pm
It’s mostly clear how this has played out. Schmidt helped herself with the Rabid Right - who I define to be the right-wing version of MoveOn.hitler and DailyKos. She hurt herself with everyone else, including people like me who are very conservative but reject the MoveOn/Kos/MichaelMoore/HowardDean way of conducting yourself.
Comment by CincyJeff — November 30, 2005 @ 9:44 pm
#20, All I can say is we shall see.
Comment by TBlumer — November 30, 2005 @ 9:59 pm