Taking Hannity to task
For the last few weeks, Sean Hannity has been listing off several races across the country where Republicans are in trouble - Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and others. In the show opening today, he said that Mike DeWine and Ken Blackwell are behind their left wing opponents primarily due to Governor Taft's problems.
Sean, I'm in Ohio. I think you're missing the point on why Mike DeWine is in trouble. It's not because of the governor's integrity problems. It's because Mike DeWine is a RINO.
Frankly, I'm hoping that several other Republicans in the Senate win their elections, because it's unlikely DeWine will. Too many conservative Republicans would rather let DeWine twist in the wind, even if it means having the wacko Brown in the seat, so that the Ohio Republican Party and the National Republican Party will finally get the message that they don't deserve support when they oppose rights guaranteed (not granted) by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. DeWine opposed the First Amendment by supporting campaign finance reform, the Second Amendment by supporting the extension of the Clinton Gun Ban, and resolution once and for all that Article II Section 2 of the Constitution means what it says, and that "advice and consent" does not mean the minority can veto a judicial (or any other executive) appointment. The DeWine campaign is saying that the Senator voted with the President 92% of the time. That may be true, but the problem is in the details. The most important and crucial votes where his vote mattered? Too many of those votes were with the obstructionists on the left side of the aisle, including opposing working towards energy independence by drilling for domestic oil in ANWR, voting against the President's budget and opposing spending cuts, opposing strengthening our border security without granting amnesty to illegal aliens and immigration reform in general, votes with environmental wackos instead of working to make us energy independent, supports laws to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, and votes half the time with labor interests against a free and efficient economy. DeWine isn't losing because Governor Taft doesn't deserve to be in office. DeWine is behind because DeWine doesn't deserve to be in office. No, neither does Sherrod Brown, but there are enough union liberals in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo inner cities that he just might.
There could be a better argument that Ken Blackwell is being tarred with the Taft brush, but I don't think that's happening either. Liberals are targeting him because he really IS a conservative, unlike either Taft or DeWine (or Voinovich, for that matter, previous Governor and currently junior RINO in the Senate). When they can't win fairly, liberals want to win by any means available. In 2004, that meant villifying the secretary of state who was sworn and dedicated to a fair and honest election. He has been targeted, just as your Senator, Katherine Harris, was targeted for her role in upholding the integrity of the 2000 election. Frankly, I think Ken Blackwell may still win, regardless of what the polls say. The latest poll showing Strickland ahead by double digits was conducted for stations in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Youngstown, all pockets of deep blue in an otherwise red state.
If Sean, or any other conservatives, want to weigh in somewhere for conservative values in an Ohio election, don't tie the DeWine and Blackwell campaigns together and blame them on Taft. By doing so, you impugn Blackwell's integrity; DeWine has done that for himself already. Tying Blackwell to DeWine, even by making any comparison that implies they are in any way similar, does a disservice to Ken Blackwell. And, at least for Ohio, the Governor's seat is much more important for a conservative win than is the Senate, and, frankly, I absolutely believe that is true for the country as a whole. Taking DeWine out of the Senate, even though it means one less seat for a Republican in the Senate, is probably a benefit in the long term, especially if any at-risk Senators in other races go Republican. Losing the Ohio governor's race has national implications that are, in my opinion, more dangerous than losing one Senate seat, even in this year's close races.
Sean, I'm in Ohio. I think you're missing the point on why Mike DeWine is in trouble. It's not because of the governor's integrity problems. It's because Mike DeWine is a RINO.
Frankly, I'm hoping that several other Republicans in the Senate win their elections, because it's unlikely DeWine will. Too many conservative Republicans would rather let DeWine twist in the wind, even if it means having the wacko Brown in the seat, so that the Ohio Republican Party and the National Republican Party will finally get the message that they don't deserve support when they oppose rights guaranteed (not granted) by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. DeWine opposed the First Amendment by supporting campaign finance reform, the Second Amendment by supporting the extension of the Clinton Gun Ban, and resolution once and for all that Article II Section 2 of the Constitution means what it says, and that "advice and consent" does not mean the minority can veto a judicial (or any other executive) appointment. The DeWine campaign is saying that the Senator voted with the President 92% of the time. That may be true, but the problem is in the details. The most important and crucial votes where his vote mattered? Too many of those votes were with the obstructionists on the left side of the aisle, including opposing working towards energy independence by drilling for domestic oil in ANWR, voting against the President's budget and opposing spending cuts, opposing strengthening our border security without granting amnesty to illegal aliens and immigration reform in general, votes with environmental wackos instead of working to make us energy independent, supports laws to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, and votes half the time with labor interests against a free and efficient economy. DeWine isn't losing because Governor Taft doesn't deserve to be in office. DeWine is behind because DeWine doesn't deserve to be in office. No, neither does Sherrod Brown, but there are enough union liberals in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Toledo inner cities that he just might.
There could be a better argument that Ken Blackwell is being tarred with the Taft brush, but I don't think that's happening either. Liberals are targeting him because he really IS a conservative, unlike either Taft or DeWine (or Voinovich, for that matter, previous Governor and currently junior RINO in the Senate). When they can't win fairly, liberals want to win by any means available. In 2004, that meant villifying the secretary of state who was sworn and dedicated to a fair and honest election. He has been targeted, just as your Senator, Katherine Harris, was targeted for her role in upholding the integrity of the 2000 election. Frankly, I think Ken Blackwell may still win, regardless of what the polls say. The latest poll showing Strickland ahead by double digits was conducted for stations in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Youngstown, all pockets of deep blue in an otherwise red state.
If Sean, or any other conservatives, want to weigh in somewhere for conservative values in an Ohio election, don't tie the DeWine and Blackwell campaigns together and blame them on Taft. By doing so, you impugn Blackwell's integrity; DeWine has done that for himself already. Tying Blackwell to DeWine, even by making any comparison that implies they are in any way similar, does a disservice to Ken Blackwell. And, at least for Ohio, the Governor's seat is much more important for a conservative win than is the Senate, and, frankly, I absolutely believe that is true for the country as a whole. Taking DeWine out of the Senate, even though it means one less seat for a Republican in the Senate, is probably a benefit in the long term, especially if any at-risk Senators in other races go Republican. Losing the Ohio governor's race has national implications that are, in my opinion, more dangerous than losing one Senate seat, even in this year's close races.
posted by NRAMark at 3:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home