Print
E-mail
Share
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Ensign said today that his fellow Republican colleague in Nevada, Rep. Jon Porter, remains a viable candidate to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010 despite having lost his re-election to Congress this month.
Even though Nevada’s Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki announced last week he was seriously considering challenging Reid, Ensign said he expects “there will be several Republicans taking a look.” My story in today’s paper discusses the terrain.
“Losing a race doesn’t mean you’re not a viable candidate,” Ensign said at briefing with national reporters at his party’s Senate campaign headquarters. “I’m a good example of that. John Thune is an example of that. Harry Reid is an example of that.”
Ensign should know – he narrowly lost to Reid in 1998 but returned in 2000 to win an open Senate seat.
Similarly, Thune, now a U.S. Senator, emerged from a narrow loss in his first run for the upper chamber to go on to beat then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota in 2004. (That brutal race brought the then-Republican leader to campaign in the incumbent leader’s home state — now known in political parlance as a verb as in Republicans hope to “Daschle” Reid in 2010.)
Reid, of course, is also a testament to rising from defeat, having lost state and local races before returning to the national stage as a congressman and senator.
Porter has not publicly announced his intentions after having lost his congressional seat this month.
Is the Republican party talent pool becoming so shallow that they now have to resort to recycling a loser? I'm not saying the Democratic party is really any better, and that in itself is disturbing to me. Obviously if a politician is defeated in one race, the voting public is making a statement. And what is the response of the political party? We'll try that particular politician for some other office, and try, and try, and try. All in the name of their respective political party. Now I know there are some partisan individuals out there who will claim that the defeated politician was a victim in the particular race because of a wave of support for the opposing party, rather than the politicain himself being a less than desireable candidate, for any multitude of reasons. Some people are so blinded by partisan politics that regardless of one candidates obvious superiority over the other, because they must vote strictly by party lines, the lesser candidate may win that battle.
I pose the following question somewhat rhetorically for the purpose of proving my point, not because I'm trying to show favor to one or the other of these two fine men:
Would John McCain have defeated Barack Obama, had Senator McCain not have been a Republican? Many people will of course say that Obama won because he was in fact the better candidate, but is that truly the fact? How many votes did McCain lose because he was the Republican candidate, and we all know which Republican preceeded him?
So back to the original point: Is it time for Harry Reid to fade away? Maybe. Is Jon Porter the candidate to take his place? Maybe not. I can already see Harry Reid waging the same ugly battle to retain his seat that we watched between Dina Titus and John Porter, minus the annoying accent, and we all know who lost that fight.
Personally, I think that professional politicians are problemmatic. They lose touch and follow their own agenda instead of the agenda of their constituents. Re-elections are beauty pageants that devolve into personality contests and ignore the real issues at hand. As to the specific topic of this article: It may well be time for Sen Reid to move on, but Jon Porter?! Give me a break. I'd sooner vote for Miss Las Vegas than give that Bush lap dog another term in the federal legislature.
Recycling the Pooter has about as much chance as recycling Jillo the clown.
The Boss has a lot of baggage such as Iraq, FISA, the bailout, and Liebergirl but it's going to take something better than a has-been-never-was to beat him. Like Heller for instance....
Is the Rs gene pool totally vacant?
If there is any doubt Ensign is not stupid it is removed now. What an idiot. Ensign better worry about himself and his failed political career. He is best known for playing golf rather than representing his constituents while in Washington. I can't wait to donate and vote against this fool.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
The people voted for change, and as long as their representatives embrace that change they will continue to succeed.
I don't see Ensign standing for anything but the same old fear and smear politcs that has collapsed the Hospitality industry here in America.