So Far, No One Has Done What Is Needed to Make a Case for Replacing Jean Schmidt
Start here:
See this previous post for an explanation of how the chart was compiled, and for references to earlier scorecard posts.
The accumulated evidence from these outside watchdog groups shows that in 2006, Jean Schmidt was the second-most conservative congressperson in Ohio.
Any GOP challenger to Jean Schmidt has to decide to campaign on one of two things:
- They will be a more conservative voter as a congressperson than Schmidt has been, because that’s what Ohio’s Second District voters want.
- They will be a less conservative voter than Schmidt, because that’s what District voters want.
To make a compelling case for either, I believe that the challenger has to actually slog through the votes analyzed in detail by the rating groups referred to in the table (National Journal, National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Club for Growth, American Conservative Union, and the US Chamber of Commerce), and come up with how he or she would have scored. I am certain, based on experience, that those organizations would be glad to provide any detailed information necessary to complete this kind of work.
As a challenger, if you believe you’re more conservative, and can show that you would have scored better than Schmidt, you would obviously tell the voters that, and post the results to prove it. You would then highlight the key votes on which you would have gone in the more conservative direction, and explain why those votes are so important that true conservatives should vote for you, and not for her.
Obviously, if you come out less conservative and believe that’s a more appropriate direction, you would do similar things, and argue in that other direction.
To my knowledge, neither of Jean Schmidt’s current challengers (listed here at this Enquirer link) have done that, including the now ex-challenger. They should have done so by now.
There are probably other ways to get to the same place, and I don’t want to pretend that completely new ideas don’t count, because they can count for a lot. But I don’t understand why Second District GOP Primary voters should consider pulling the lever for any challenger who isn’t going to make a comprehensive case for replacing Mrs. Schmidt that goes beyond soundbites and generalities. And, as I see it, no one has.
_______________________________________________
UPDATE, Feb. 13: Remember how Club for Growth gave Schmidt so much grief (third item at link) in the 2005 GOP Special Primary? The CFG’s August 2007 RePORK Card shows that their harsh 2005 judgment of Schmidt was mostly premature.
Here’s how they evaluated Ohio’s GOP congressional delegation and selected others on 50 earmark-related votes in the first half of 2007:
- Pence (IN) – 100%
- Jordan – 98%
- Chabot – 96%
- Schmidt – 74%
- Boehner – 60%
- Tiberi – 38%
- Davis (KY) – 12%
- Gillmor – 8%
- Hobson – 6%
- LaTourette – 6%
- Pryce – 4%
- Turner – 2%
- Regala – 0%
Tom, thanks for putting this together. The chart makes the apologists for COAST look even more foolish than usual whenever they try to trash Congresswoman Jean Schmidt as a RINO.
Comment by Excelsior — February 12, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
As an economist the only votes that matter to me are the ones where Schmidt continues to approve of wasteful government spending and votes to hike the unemployment and inflation rates, i.e., her vote to raise the minimum wage, justify that one please, anyone?
Comment by Nate Noy — February 13, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
#2, assuming that’s really you, Economist Nate —
Of course you know the answer. I disagree. So?
A challenger needs to make the case that they’d better on econ issues than her. The only ways to do that are to specifically and comprehensively ID how your voting record would be better and, as a supplement, come up with new ideas that are superior to the ones currently being used (e.g., perhaps advocating the Fair Tax).
But in terms of your point, it’s one down, and at least 100 econ-related roll call votes to go. The obvious econ element in CFG’s REPORK Card and the various scorecards in the table indicate that the burden of proof is on the challenger.
And Nate, you’re not going to get away with pretending all of a sudden that the WOT, social issues, or any of the other not-directly-econ-related issues that you’ve blogged about and written on in the past don’t matter now — at least not around here.
Comment by TBlumer — February 13, 2008 @ 9:50 pm