Radtke’s preemptive strike on Allen
By JR Hoeft | Monday, January 17th, 2011 | PoliticsThe rumors are swirling regarding George Allen’s expected announcement to run for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2012.
Jamie Radtke, already an announced candidate, wastes little time in laying down the gauntlet on what her main difference with Allen will be:
“During Senator Allen’s six years in office, he voted for budgets adding $3.1 trillion to our national debt – that’s $16,400 for every second Senator Allen was in office. I disagree with his approach.”
Radtke is proposing a series of monthly debates and town halls between Allen’s entry and the nomination to discuss this and presumably other issues.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
29 Responses to "Radtke’s preemptive strike on Allen"
That seems like an “I’m not him” moment.
I don’t know… I just don’t think it would be a good idea for Allen to run again. He’s been out of the limelight for awhile, and he may be seen as part of the old Beltway gang establishment.
With all the new blood that came in during the last election, maybe it’s time for George to call it quits.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shaun Kenney, Paul Thurman. Paul Thurman said: RT @bearingdrift: Web: Radtke’s preemptive strike on Allen http://bit.ly/hFW7as @jamieradtke @georgeallenva #vasen #tcot [...]
Shows a bit of Mrs. Radkte’s naïveté regarding the budget process.
While everyone, George Allen included, recognizes that the federal government spends too much, to lump all spending into one sum and imply that it’s ALL bad seems a bit reckless.
Allen would be nuts to agree to debates at this point.
It’s extremely difficult for anyone, even the Tom Coburns of the world, to vote against appropriations drafted by your colleagues and desired be a President of your own party.
Throw in that at least $1 trillion of that was expenses for the war in Iraq, and I don’t believe you can fault Allen for doing what he did.
Radtke needs to spend more time convincing people why she should be Senator rather than why Allen shouldn’t. Before she starts attacking, she needs to build her own credibility.
Radtke is a lightweight. The “please, please, Mr. Allen” debate me challenge reeks of desperation.
The losing candidate always wants a debate.
I hope someone other than Ms Radkte and George Allen is planning to run against Webb. Webb really really needs to be defeated.
Comparing this race to the Delaware Senate primary this past Spring: Jamie Radtke may be Christine O’Donnell, but George Allen is not Mike Castle.
George Allen is not Mike Castle.
-That’s right he’s not which is a point in his favor. However he may be another (lesser) Dino Rossi and that’s a demerit.
Brian: You’re right. He’d be nuts to debate her..that would give her the one things she craves most, name recognition.
There is no reason why any conservative should have a problem with Allen’s politics. You want to hit him on spending, fine – point out what he should have voted against.
In terms of every other policy position, he’s as solid a conservative as you’ll find, and there’s no reason for anyone to try and go at him from the right.
You can argue that he’s damaged goods, or that we need fresh blood, but trying to argue he’s ideologically not right is an exceedingly poor argument.
If you’ve gotten to the point where your pool of candidates is reduced to people who are to the right of George Allen — well, there’s just not a lot of room over there.
Schoeneman: Allen’s voting record is fair game and public record. If you want a better view of a politician’s future, review their past voting record. Accountability and responcibility is there for all to see.
IMO: You are making excuses for Allen…
Allen IS damaged goods (as is Marshall). And we DO need fresh blood.
JR – Not convinced (yet) Allen’s hospitality numbers correlate to rock-start support status. Rumor has it his ADVANCE event was held in the restaurant, was attended by both friends and foes, and the other hospitality choices were Eric Cantor, Mark Obenshain, Corey Stewart, Dave Foster, Hunt for Senate, Bob Marshall & Dick Black, Americans for Prosperity, House Republican Caucus, Virginia Faith and Freedom Coalition, and the 10th District Republican Committee. (Courtesy of: http://swacgirl.blogspot.com/2010/11/2010-republican-advance.html)
[...] Read more from JR Hoeft at Bearing Drift Tweet [...]
There is a ton of room to Allen’s right … except to moderate John Warner types like it seems some of you are.
He has NEVER been remotely pro-life, he did back the Clinton Assault Weapon ban (before being against it), voted for Prescription Drug, all the intrusive crap in Patriot, No Child, … and I’d bet dollars to donuts would have run with Cantor and McCain to support the TARP bailout.
There’s more, but that’s a start.
He was more RINO than conservative in the Senate and them’s the facts, boyyo.
Ciao.
“He has NEVER been remotely pro-life,”
I seem to recall that after many years of failure parental notification passed on his watch. He signed it.
I would agree that, unlike Mark Earley say, or Bob Marshall, abortion has never been his reason for being in politics.
This revisionist history on Allen’s votes is getting old. On the prescription drug plan, you had TWO Republicans vote against it – those bastions of conservatism, John McCain and Chuck Hagel. Every single other Republican in the Senate, including guys like Rick Santorum, John Cornyn, Sam Brownback, Jim Inhofe, Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell all voted for it.
As for the Patriot Act, every single Republican in the Senate voted for it in 2001 and in 2006. The only votes against were Democrats.
No Child Left Behind? Most Republicans voted for it – only 7 voted against it, including that Tea Party hero, Bob Bennett, who got primaried in 2008, and Voinovich from Ohio, who probably would have gotten primaried if he chose to run again.
There is no excuse for anyone to be distorting Allen’s record and acting like he was doing anything that the rest of the party wasn’t doing at the time. And if you want to attack him, you have to attack a number of people I think most Tea Party guys happen to like.
Them’s the real facts.
And because big government Republicanism held the field from 2000-2006 (and Allen voted for virtually every single piece of it), the Republican Party is still detested in polls, got shellacked in 2006 and 2008 elections and birthed the Tea Party/Liberty movement.
No, this is not revisionism, this is a refusal to go back to failed vote-for-anything, stand-for-nothing Republicanism exemplified by George Allen.
And he is consistently not pro-life; not even close.
In the Republican Party today, I am proud to say, that is in itself a near deal-killer.
hiss — snap
George Allen was a centrist conservative Republican Senator. He was Not a RINO. Dede Scoz is a RINO, Mike Castle is a RINO. However, events have moved on and he is going to have a tough time at “market reentry” as the Wall Street types say. If he had won in 2006 then he would be an easy winner because he would have shifted rightward without misgivings. My concern is his campaign ineptitude. To allow the Wash Post to play him like a drum for 3 months does not show good electioneering technique. Even with his bumbling Allen almost won which makes it really frustrating since his loss gave the Dems a majority in 2006. Can’t the Repubs find some military or other distinguished citizen to take on Webb? With a decent candidate Webb will lose in a landslide.
rtwingtroll,
George Allen championed and signed the parental notification act in Virginia. I was there for the fight. He kept at it until he got it right.
As for not being “remotely” pro-life. Here’s his Senate record on life issues:
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
The Republican party that makes a record like that a “deal killer” won’t be electing the next Senator.
“There is no excuse for anyone to be distorting Allen’s record and acting like he was doing anything that the rest of the party wasn’t doing at the time.”
Nice evaluation… So he failed to be a leader, didn’t stand up for his beliefs and was just doing what everyone else was doing? WOW!!! Vote for me. I was just going with the party…
Sounds like a great slogan for Allen to use!!!! LOL
So Brian says: “There is no excuse for anyone to be distorting Allen’s record and acting like he was doing anything that the rest of the party wasn’t doing at the time. And if you want to attack him, you have to attack a number of people I think most Tea Party guys happen to like.”
Oh really? The senate republicans as a majority screwed the pooch so its ok if ours does too? That doing what the rest of the party crap is our standard line for tolerating lousy government leadership. The GOP needs a fresh set of rubber for the road but instead it throws on a retread salvaged from a fiery crash.
Those who choose not to remember the past are condemning the rest of us to repeat it.
Turbo, it’s exceedingly hard for someone to go against both the leadership and a President of their own party. Do that and there are all kinds of tools and ways for the leadership/president to punish that behavior.
Guys who always buck the leadership get a bad reputation and they are treated like pariahs. I can’t fault Allen for the bad behavior of President Bush and the leadership under Frist.
I blame them.
Like I said, I have no problems holding Allen to his votes, but you have to put them into context and look at who else joined him.
You want to complain about Allen, that’s fine, but I don’t want to hear about how great Inhofe and others are when they did the same thing.
What I hope is that when you see someone like Inhofe voting for something you don’t like, you’ll recognize there’s more at play than simply the principle of that vote.
“Can’t go against his own party”? Oh, come on! Well times have changed and we need people who will go against ANY party line when the principle warrants it. Does the Senator represent the Party or the People who elected him (and who will soon elect HER).
Is that why it’s OK for Warner/Webb and the VA Dem Delegation voted for Obamacare? Because it was hard for them to go against the party and the President?
PULEEZE.
Not going against the party is exactly the problem, because the party is often the problem.
I thought it was great that Jamie challenged Allen to a debate.
If the party is the problem, why does Radtke want to be a part of it? I’ll tell you.
It’s because she knows she can’t win without it. Some of us don’t believe she can win WITH it.
Radtke should take note of how successful crying for debates was for Floyd Bayne.
Nothing like an Allen Webb rematch to make sure Webb stays in office. Congratulations dems, 2012 will be a good year for you.. I can already hear Allen’s concession speech.
In absence of scandal or another Macaca-esq moment, my predictions:
a) Allen/ Radtke primary – Allen wins.
b) Allen/ Radtke/ Marshall primary – Allen wins.
c) Allen/ Radtke/ Marshall/ Stewart primary – Allen wins
If the Republican field remains at a,b,or c – Webb will run for re-election and win. There aren’t enough Allen partisans left to carry him to victory. Karen Hurd is right – in this new climate of accountability, old excuses just aren’t good enough. “I only did it because everyone else was doing it” didn’t work in my father’s house (or mine).
By 2012 Obama will be redefined and somewhat resurrected. Democrats will get out the vote; Independents will lean towards Webb; and a significant percentage of Tea Party and like-minded Republicans will conclude (after Radtke bloodies him up in the primary) George Allen’s senate voting record (on spending) is unacceptable and will either stay home or cast a vote for Webb. It is a new day; Virginians are looking for a new type of leader. Allen, like Charlie Crist, is yesterday’s Republican.
Ward, I think what Karen meant was the party’s blind loyalty is part of the problem.
Karen Hurd is 100% right. Do you represent George Bush or the people that elected you? Will your insubordination be dealt with harshly? Yes, but suck it up and take it for the people damn it! What is better? Dealt with by egos in your own party or VOTED OUT OF OFFICE BY PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR YOU THE FIRST TIME. Allen was a good governor. Senator? – not so much.
If Allen wins, I will vote for him. Webb’s crime of supporting economy wrecking, American way killing socialized medicine is worse than Allen’s mistakes.
That said………unfortunately, I think Jay D is right with his predictions. How freakin’ sad. This will be a gigantic wasted opportunity.
JayD
Let’s not get too hysterical. Webb is a very weak candidate against any mainstream conservative candidate other than Allen. He has ticked off a lot of Democrats. Virginia is not going for Obama in 2012 so there won’t be coattails. The Repubs just need to get their act together and find a suitable candidate … oops… ok lets get hysterical.
Leave your response