The New York Times reports today that the Republican leadership has effectively given up on Ohio Senator Mike DeWine’s reelection campaign, choosing to divert funds towards more hotly contested elections. According to the Times, the ostensible concession in Ohio demonstrates the GOP’s increasing willingness to focus fundraising only on the most competitive and pivotal races.
While conservative bloggers remained all but silent in response to the article, the more liberal blogopshere smelled the fresh meat, and pounced.
“So, where is the Republican money going?” the All Spine Zoneasks, before attempting an explanation. “It is going to negative ads, to the bullying that Republicans do best. And maybe that’s appropriate. In the end, folks like DeWine voted with their Party the vast majority of times, but when they did try to stray they were bullied back into line. That’s one thing the Republicans know how to do well.”
Other observers argued that the outwardly sunny face of GOP leaders masks their inner concerns about the potential stormy weather ahead.
CommentsAlabama Liberation Front: “If rank-and-file conservatives don’t see the train wreck coming, then the same elite country-club Republican pundits who sold us ‘compassionate conservatism’ are going to monopolize the ‘what went wrong’ debate that is already underway.
“It annoys me when some talk-radio rah-rahs act as if the Republican base is so weak and helpless that, if they hear one discouraging word, they’ll stay home and pout on Election Day,” the blogger adds. “That’s condescending, and a disservice to millions of conservatives who are mature enough to handle the truth.”
A few pundits, however, took umbrage for a slightly different reason. During the 2004 presidential election numerous bloggers had lambasted the article’s author, political reporter Adam Nagourney, for what some saw as erratic coverage of Democratic candidate John Kerry.
Now, here we are: another election year. Another Nagourney article. Another round of blog-grrrrs.
“My first instinct when reading that the GOP is writing off Mike DeWine was to break out the champagne too, asserts the Dispassionate Lib. “But look at the NY Times‘ by-line. One of our favorite wankers, Ad Nags. Granted, this is more reporting the news, something this monkey with a typewriter might still remember how to do competently when he reviews his worn out syllabus from journalism school. It’s his lack of anything resembling logic which gets him in trouble when he dips his toe in the icy waters of opinion writing. But I’d like to hold off the celebration until we get this news from another source.”
“Um, OK, so the people Nagourney used to write the article weren’t even in the strategy meetings?” notes Ankle Biting Pundits. “And did Nagourney ever find out why it is these people were talking to him? Perhaps some of them didn’t have their ideas accepted and are bitter. Perhaps their ‘D-listers’. Perhaps their candidate didn’t get the money they wanted.”
Continues ABF: “Hey look, I’m not saying that the strategy set forth in the article is totally out of realm of possibility. In fact, it makes sense, if all the assumptions in the piece are true. It’s just that one has to wonder why it is that these ‘senior national GOP strategists’ would be making these comments to the New York Times.”
But despite such questions, few could counter with positive forecasts for the Republican party.
Real Clear Politics writes: “The GOP has decided that their best chance for holding the Senate is to focus on just three races? Ostensibly, they have already ceded 4 seats in all — PA, MT, RI and now OH. That means they have to go at least 2 for 3 in these three contests. That sounds awfully risky to me.”
Andrew Bielak was a CJR intern.