Peter Schiff: good economist, bad loser and maybe I was wrong about the Teaparty
via The Daily Caller (specifically, objective reporting machine, Jon Ward):
Connecticut Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, Peter Schiff, could tolerate mockery when he foretold the economic collapse, but he’s having trouble coping with his imminent primary loss to professional wrestling CEO, Linda McMahon.
“I’m the best candidate but unfortunately I’m not going to be the nominee,” Schiff said in an interview by phone as he criss-crossed the state in an RV… “I’m not saying I’m not going to win. I can still possibly pull it off. But if I end up not being the nominee, it’s just really unfortunate, because not only am I the only person that can deliver the kind of change that the country needs, but I actually have a better chance of beating Dick Blumenthal,” he said.
At first glance, it’s easy to believe his loss will be because of McMahon’s oodles and oodles (a KT-nomics term) of money. But a closer look shows his weak campaign and the fact he’s a single issue candidate are also factors (although, if there’s going to be single issue voting right now, the economy is the issue).
And if you’re going to run on economics alone, Linda McMahon is a formidable opponent. She has that real world experience the Teaparty cherishes. McMahon’s spokeperson, Ed Patru:
“(McMahon) has never claimed to be an academic theorist or a celebrity cable talk show economist. She spent 30 years in the real world building a global enterprise from a company that started with one desk… She was the CEO of an NYSE traded billion dollar company that employs nearly 600 people. She understands how jobs are created and how budgets are balanced in the real world, and she clearly has a firm grasp of economic principles.”
Sounds pretty Teaparty/Palinesque to me. Schiff also doesn’t have national Teaparty support (whatever that means lately). Strangely, that makes my love/hate relationship with the Teaparty movement *ducking* tip towards love. It often seems that a very vocal sector of the Teaparty faithful agree that the nation is in a state of emergency with the Obama administration at the epicenter, but they’re solution is to vote for any candidate they’ve never heard of who has no chance of winning. So long as that candidate is a true conservative (TM), a term with a pretty murky definition. Frankly, I find that to be the same kind of feel-good-startin’-a-revolution rhetoric the O-bots fell for. That doesn’t make sense to me, so I’ve respectfully distanced myself from identifying with them.
B-b-but per…haps I was wr-wr-wrong. I’m curious what my fellow wingnuts thinks about this. (Not so curious what trolls who visit my blog everyday with the sole purpose of finding a new way to inform me they don’t like me have to say, but they can comment too!)
Regardless, the Paul Revere costumes have to go.
crossposted at POWIP, KillTruck
P.S. Since the above paragraphs encompass everything I know about Connecticut politics I asked a Schiff supporter I follow on twitter what she thought of Ward’s article:
Schiff was never going to be the nominee, but when he debated McMahon and Simmons I just thought that he didn’t feed us b.s. And he just said what he thought, and didn’t care. He has good financial ideas, whereas McMahon donated money to a whole bunch of democrats, and Simmons was my congressman, I met him a few times, but he still royally f-ed up some votes in 2006.
Jenny
Lori Ziganto
somegit
Snark And Boobs 
I just stumbled upon your blog. I happened to be a Schiff supporter. Your blog shows that you know absolutely nothing about who Peter Schiff is (nor Linda McMahon). A blog like this with a few haphazard passers-by, as if calling out to them: hey, look at me… hey, pls…don’t go… – is a huge waste of carbon footprint. Well, on second thought, if it serves to satisfy your narcissistic ego which no one else appreciates or cares, then I guess I should keep my displeasure to myself.
Thanks for reading. I can see that poor loser stuff is way off base.
If you’d read the whole thing you’d see I clearly admitted I wasn’t an expert on Connecticut politics. Just some thoughts on an interesting article written by someone who is an expert on politics.
Maybe you could educate me. I’d love to see what you’ve written lately.
I agree with your general sentiment on the Tea Party. I believe it serves as a powerful force these days, but a force without a focused direction. If you boil down the general themes you find fiscal responsibility, limited government, strong national defense, and American exceptionalism. I personally don’t have any problem with those views.
The Tea Party is serving as the last flare for the GOP. I think they either get back to their roots and fully embrace the Tea Party mentality, or they become a semi-obsolete party like the Tories in the UK. Clearly the US is at a crossroads for political ideology. Whether we continue down the same path or not is up to us.
I definitely support the ideology behind the Teaparty. I just have a few style issues.
We need to have what you sarcastically refer to as “Genuine Conservative (TM)” candidates to push the conversation back towards conservative solutions, instead of allowing moderate candidates to echo what the Dhimmicrats say, only less loudly. Nominating only the ‘electable’ is how we ended up with 60’s democrat style “Compassionate Conservatism”. Enough already. We need to only back people who will ideologically CRUSH leftists, not play nice to them. Bold colors, not pale pastels.
If you’ve got a “true conservative” that can flip one of these solid blue seats then good for you. If you don’t, and you’re not naive then you need to vote for a Republican, maybe a moderate one, that can get the bastards out of power.
You guys don’t like it, but Scott Brown was the only kind of Republican that could have won his seat. That’s the reality, and if you guys really care about America as much as you say you do and if Obama and co. are really as dangerous as you claim they are, then you’ll see that.
Or you can keep shooting the messenger.