More on the Men Who Would Be Ned Lamont

The challenge against Walter Jones, the Freedom Frier-turned anti-war Republican, has a lot more oomph than I found for yesterday's blog post. Josh Kraushaar reports in the Politico:

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.) is facing a serious challenge from Onslow County Commissioner Joseph McLaughlin in a district that houses one-fifth of the Marine Corps at Camp Lejeune. Onslow County is the largest in the district.

"Disloyalty is something you can't tolerate. That's the way military people look at it," said Onslow County GOP Chairman Ronald Cherubini. "As a party, we have sent him a letter saying we cannot support you anymore because you're not voting (with) your constituency."

Cherubini said that party chairmen from the heavily Republican counties in the eastern portion of the district have also told the congressman that he would not receive their support in his primary bid for reelection.

That's actually far more institutional pressure than Lieberman got from Connecticut Democrats, isn't it? Lots of outsiders backed Lamont, but how many county chairman made the plunge?

Kraushaar finds that Ron Paul, rather surprisingly, is having an easier time with actual Republicans in his district.

Paul's outspoken views on foreign policy haven't yet had a visible effect on his district support. Several days after the second presidential debate, Paul appeared at the Galveston County Lincoln Day Dinner, where he received a warm reception from the attendees.

Comments

[Grotius]

"Disloyalty is something you can't tolerate."

How about incompetence? Can that be tolerated?

[joe]

Good to know where these people's loyalty lies.

Because it certainly is with their country or the people serving it.

[John]

"Good to know where these people's loyalty lies.

Because it certainly is with their country or the people serving it."

WTF? Joe most Republicans support the war and most people who are in the military support the war. Gee, this guy is in a Republican district with a ton of service members. It is a surprise they want to kick him out after he comes out against the war? Are you being sarcastic? Are you implying anyone who supports the war has no right to vote thier conscience?

[joe]

"...most people who are in the military support the war."

Um, not so much. Not anymore.

"It is a surprise they want to kick him out after he comes out against the war?"

What we've seen is that a set of Republican officeholders want to kick him out of office. We most certainly have not seen evidence that his actual constituents want to kick him out of office for turning against the war.

[joe]

Although I certainly hope they do.

Building a veto-proof majority is going to be much easier if the Republicans run candidates who want to party like it's 2002.

[Grotius]

Support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military's professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll.

Since this was published would one guess that support for either has increased or eroded?

[Grotius]

John,

This comes from the end of 2006:

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

...

Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today - 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

[John]

"Um, not so much. Not anymore."

I don't see any evidence of that. Yours?

As far as the voters in this district go.

"Cherubini said that party chairmen from the heavily Republican counties in the eastern portion of the district have also told the congressman that he would not receive their support in his primary bid for reelection."

I guessing those chairman are putting their fingers to the wind and reacting to real voters. This guy is probably toast. I know that sucks for people to be allowed to vote for their own reps Joe, but that is our crappy system. Maybe someday we can have your system where people who don't agree with you are no longer allowed to vote, but for now we will have to make due.

[John]

Joe,

I frankly would love to see the Democrats get a veto proof majority. The responsibilty might sober them up. Just like they havne't gotten the U.S. to pull out of Iraq, despite telling dopes like you that is what they would do if they took Congress. My guess is the Democrats would have to start taking responsibility and actually making hard decision rather than just engaging in emotional hysterics. Not a God damned thing would change if the Dems took a veto proof majority in Congress and the Presidency in 2009 other than people like you would have to start facing reality rather than sticking your head in the sand pretending George Bush is the new Hitler. I say Bravo to a veto proof Dem majority. Good Luck when it happens.

[Grotius]

John,

BTW, it took me all of about thirty seconds to find those links.

[joe]

Neener neener nee-ner.

How can the war be unpopular among military personnel?

Pauline "John" Kael doesn't know a single soldier who's against the war.

It's so cute that you still think you speak for a majority.

[joe]

"Just like they havne't gotten the U.S. to pull out of Iraq, despite telling dopes like you that is what they would do if they took Congress."

I'm sorry our crappy system requires a 2/3 of each house to override a presidential veto. Maybe someday we can have a system where people who disagree with me aren't allowed to vote in Congress, but as of now, but for now we'll have to make due.

[joe]

But I'm sure your perception of how Democrats would behave in power is every bit as reliable as your perception of how military personnel feel about the war, John.

[creech]

Well, after 2008, Jones will be free to join Barr on the Libertarian National Committee.

[highnumber]

Grotius,

What are you doing here?!
Get out of here. Can't you see they want to be alone together? Come on, let's go talk about ancient Rome somewhere else. Doesn't that sound nice?

[John]

Joe,

Reality sucks and you only get to deny it when you are out of power. If Democrats take power in 2009, not exactly a certainty, I am going to laugh my ass off. I can see the "things are getting better in Iraq now that the Dems are in charge" stories coming now. Followed by the slow draw down that would have happened anyway followed by people like you saying how the Democrats saved the day in Iraq. No one will be more happy to see it than me. Meanwhile, the Partriot Act will continue to be in effect along with any number of other things that the Dems currently claim are going to end civilization as we know it. The only thing that would change is people like Murtha would be steeling from the treasury instead of Tom Delay.

[joe]

"Reality sucks and you only get to deny it when you are out of power."

I don't know, you people managed to be pretty darn reality-challenged while controlling the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court.

So, if I go back to threads from the 2004 presidential campaign, or from 2005 about the Congressional campaign, I'll find you proclaiming that the course of the Iraq War won't change if the Democrats win, right?

Right?

[Grotius]

highnumber,

You may be right. 🙂