« MT-Sen: State Dems Target Burns on Corruption | Main | KY-03: Do We Have a Challenger? »
Monday, November 21, 2005
CT-02: "Moderate" Rob Simmons Tells Constituents to Shut Up
Posted by DavidNYCI always grit my teeth when I hear a Republican described as a "moderate." In modern American political parlance, "moderate" Republican means "right-wing, but not totally insane right-wing" Republican. In other words, it's a total bullshit concept, ginned up by a media which loves to play sides against each other and handicap those various make-believe factions in some mythical horserace.
Rob Simmons is one such Republican "moderate" - House GOP leaders are smart enough to let Simmons play "catch-and-release" on controversial votes to hide his true leanings from his constituents. But his real stripes shone through the other day with his remarks about opponents of the Iraq War and even Rep. John Murtha. This is what Rob Simmons is all about:
On Rep. Murtha: "This is a guy, who like me, is a Vietnam veteran. I assume he knows how demoralizing it can be to soldiers in the field to have people back home questioning the value of their mission when people are getting wounded and killed.... He should know better."
On Congressional debate: "It's appropriate for Congress to have these conversations, but not in public. It conveys a bad message to our troops and our opponents."
On war critics: Simmons said that anti-war politics "undermines their [veterans'] cause and degrades their heroic service and sacrifice."
No doubt many of Rob Simmons' constituents oppose our continued engagement in Iraq. His message to them: Shut up, stop attacking our troops, we shouldn't even be talking about this. Yep, sounds like a real moderate to me.
P.S. This district went for Kerry 54-44. And Simmons has a very strong challenger this year (the same guy who pulled in 46% of the vote against him in 2002, which was a weak Dem year), former State Rep. Joe Courtney. This seat should absolutely, totally be ours - and Rob Simmons just helped make our job easier with his unacceptable remarks.
Posted at 06:35 PM in 2006 Elections - House, Connecticut | Technorati
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/1979
Comments
Simmons also waffled on H. Res 572 (which provided for consideration of H. Res 571)
I'm sick of "faux-mavericks" and their friends at the NRCC. It's an insult to our intelligence. Simmons has Bush's handprint on his shoulder.
Posted by: RBH ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.swingstateproject.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 21, 2005 07:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Perception often trumps reality. A dozen years ago, I almost never heard the name Pete Wilson without it being followed by "the moderate Republican Governor of California." After Wilson's ferocious attack on immigrants in 1994, the "moderate" label did subside a bit, but by and large, the media associates "moderation" with one issue....abortion rights. That's why some go so far as to call Arnold Schwarzenegger a "liberal Republican" because Arnold adheres to strict party orthodoxy only on the meat-and-potatoes issues that most affect the average person lives....and not on the all-important moral values issues.
I guess the point of my ramble is that Rob Simmons gets to be a moderate if enough people say he is....despite any evidence that may prove otherwise. Independent voters like the idea of a maverick in his/her party, and if the local media is able to convince CT-02 voters that Simmons meets that profile, he may prove to be harder to unseat that what it looks like on paper. I'm not trying to sound pessimistic, but I definitely think we should approach a race like this as though we're 20 points behind in the polls....because if Simmons' status as a "moderate" continues to be repeated as frequently as it is now, we just may be behind by 20 points in the polls.
Posted by: Mark at November 21, 2005 07:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"I definitely think we should approach a race like this as though we're 20 points behind in the polls....because if Simmons' status as a "moderate" continues to be repeated as frequently as it is now, we just may be behind by 20 points in the polls."
nice. isn't this how we are supposed to be viewing politics anyway? Yeah the republician side can make themselves look bad all by themselves but i don't think that is a reason to coast at all...in fact the opposite. In politics there is no coasting.
Posted by: blackmonday at November 21, 2005 08:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Right across the river, and not far from Simmons' district, the PERCEPTION that Mike Bloomberg is a "moderate" Republican mayor of New York City just won him a nearly twenty percent margin of victory in a city that claims to have five or more registered Democrats to every registered Republican.
The sad thing, is just how many DEMOCRATS fell for it, which is why I'm SOOOOO glad I don't live in the overhyped NYC, but instead live in "the most Democratic state in the nation", and is ever so slightly even moreso as the ballots are being scrutinized in a recount for one final Assembly seat (Panter).
Posted by: progressivemuslimnj at November 21, 2005 10:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Great post, linked it. Those CT guys irritate me so very much.
Posted by: jesselee at November 22, 2005 11:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
One more thing in favor of Joe Courtney's campaign - He started raising money about 12 months earlier than he had in 2002. Coupled with the expected money from the DCCC and the DNC, he should be in a much stronger position in 2006 relative to 2002.
I also fell pretty good about CT-5, Nancy Johnson's seat...Anyone with me? I don't think the situation is as bad as they seem to be saying here.
Posted by: thekickingdonkey at November 22, 2005 11:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"His message to them: Shut up, stop attacking our troops, we shouldn't even be talking about this. Yep, sounds like a real moderate to me."
I think telling voters or constituents to shut up is awful. But I can't help but see the similiarities between his rudeness and Paul Hackett's rudeness...From Mother Jones...
“That’s low politics, punk!” a heavy-set man sneers as he marches toward the poll.
Hackett wheels around. “Pardon me?”
“You know, that radio ad that says, ‘You don’t know Schmidt.’” He’s talking about one of Hackett’s attack ads against Republican Jean Schmidt. The man spews a stream of epithets, and Hackett lets out a crybaby whimper: “Waaaaaaa!”
“What’s that, punk?” the big man growls.
A TV crew is setting up nearby, but Hackett doesn’t seem to care. “What’s your fuckin’ problem?” the candidate snaps. “You got something to say to me? Bring it on!” Hackett, all 6 feet 2 inches of him, is nose to nose with the heckler. “Problem?” he taunts. The man turns around and storms away.
We need a new era of politics - where voters and constituents are treated with respect and dignity - no matter their opinion. The Left and the Right need to take back their dignity, or this sort of thing will just continue to happen.
WE can't criticize republicans for thier rudeness with our own candidates going around cursing and screaming at voters. That, and we certainly don't need that sort of language from a supposed candidate for US Senate...
Posted by: ademagainstdinos at November 22, 2005 01:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
ademagainstdino, I don't think the issue is rudeness. It's about the rightwing attempt to create a police state by demonizing all dissent as "unpatriotic" or "demoralizing the troops". It's the same argument used by every dictator and authoritarian thoughout history, and need to be slapped down hard whereever it's found.
I see no similarity here to the Hackett incident you describe. He was faced by an aggressive name-calling asshole. There's no reason to tolerate rightwing pigs like this. We need more honest human responses like Hackett's in politics, not less.
Posted by: DaveW at November 22, 2005 02:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DaveW is 100% correct. The two incidents aren't even remotely comparable. Hackett told an abusive heckler to star off. Simmons has attacked Iraq war critics as unpatriotic.
Posted by: DavidNYC at November 22, 2005 02:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
That heckler is a voter nonetheless and if Hackett had won, would have been one of his constituents. Would you be outraged if Jeanne Schmidt had said to you or any voter "What's your fucking problem?". Yes, yes you would.
I've never heard of a Democratic Candidate cursing at a voter - more so, being proud to curse and put down at a voter. I don't think that's the kind of democrat we need running for any office - city council all the way to president. We need someone who will represent his/her worst enemy and treat every voter with respect.
I'm ashamed to be a democrat when I see our candidates acting this way. Paul Wellstone, the man he courted me to become a democrat, never would have done anything so shameful.
Posted by: ademagainstdinos at November 22, 2005 04:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
ademagainstdinos, there are few bigger fans of Paul Wellstone than myself, but don't forget that when he first got to Capitol Hill in 1991, he had his own "Jean Schmidt moment" when he stated he "despised Senator Jesse Helms". I do agree that Hackett's response to the indignant Republican was over-the-top and that it could ultimately end up costing him support, but lionizing Wellstone as a saint requires that one overlook some embarrassing and unprofessional moments in his first year in office.
Posted by: Mark at November 22, 2005 05:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
ademagainstdinos, yeah, if I were an asshole rightwing political heckler, I'd at least pretend to be outraged, because I'm a bullying idiot and I have the right to do whatever I want without any opposition. That's how stupid bullies think.
I think you're trying to elevate a matter of personal style to a political principle. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Posted by: DaveW at November 22, 2005 05:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
So I guess if you're a left wing super smart BULLY, you can go around spewing foul language at voters who disagree with you or tease you.
I mean, we are outraged when Vice President Cheney tells a democratic United States Senator "Fuck You" but when Paul Hackett says this to A VOTER, we think that it is okay - or some think that it's what he should do.
We deserve more from our United States Senator - Mike DeWine is a very poor Senator, and doesn't represent my views. Although he won't return my phone calls, Lord knows he won't tell an ordinary voter who criticizes him to "what's your fucking problem"
If Hackett can't control his temper and if he thinks he's infallible, well, that sort of arrogance is what we have in the White House today, we don't need it in the Senate tomorrow.
Posted by: ademagainstdinos at November 23, 2005 01:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment