Common Iowan mentions that the DNC wants to model 2008 campaigns on Dave Loebsack's victory over Jim Leach.
I don't think that's a wise thing.
The Loebsack-Leach race was actually a rather unique situation. The two candidates were very similar on many issues; both were against the Iraq War (Leach voted against it), both were against the Bush Tax Cuts (Leach was the only House Republican voting against them in 2002), and both were critics of many of President Bush's policies. Leach is also pro-abortion and in favor of taxpayers funding stem cell research. Leach wouldn't accept PAC money or out-of-state donations. The only thing Jim Leach had going for him in the past was his lengthy incumbency, name recognition, and chairmanship of the House Financial Services committee, but that crumbled away as he was forced to move into a more Democrat-leaning district several years ago after Iowa was reapportioned.
What's the difference between Dave Loebsack and Jim Leach, other than the letter behind their names? Not much, if you think about it.
What do I think happened?
Two things:
1. Dave Loebsack gave RINOs and moderate independents a reason to vote against a House lifer. It was an anti-incumbency thing.
2. Jim Leach was not the kind of candidate that excited the Republican base. Say you're pro-life, or maybe you think the tax cuts were a good idea, or maybe you're in favor of the war in Iraq. Who are you going to vote for? Well, you don't have anybody to vote for, so you leave the bubble blank. It's as simple as that.
Good luck on the DNC finding more 30 year Republican incumbents who are pro-choice, anti-war, anti-tax cut, and are a regular critic of members of his own party. I think the last one just left the building.
0 comments:
Post a Comment