Charles Pierce at Esquire uses a recurring headline, “Things In Politico That Make Me Want To Guzzle Antifreeze, Part The Infinity,” for what he views as the death of serious political reporting at Politico Tiger Beat on the Potomac.
Most of what Tiger Beat on the Potomac publishes is fluff pieces from political operatives and Beltway insiders, mostly on behalf of conservatives and Republicans. Like this recent fluff piece by Alex Isenstadt, The House GOP’s top recruit:
She’s the first female Air Force fighter pilot to fly in combat, a retired colonel who once sued the Pentagon over a policy on Muslim dress, and a self-described moderate who rails against government overreach.
Republicans consider Arizona’s Martha McSally their top House recruit of 2014, and few have generated as much excitement in GOP circles.
McSally, a die-hard athlete, has had her share of stumbles on the political field.
She’s been criticized for comparing herself to Giffords and accused of evading issues that might antagonize either base GOP voters or moderates, declining, for instance, to say if she would have voted for the deal that ended last fall’s government shutdown. Giffords is watching the race closely, and her well-funded pro-gun control super PAC is expected to pump money into the contest to shore up Barber, who describes McSally as being in “hiding” on the issues.
Fellow Republicans brush off concerns about McSally, preferring to focus on her lengthy résumé. That she is a woman doesn’t hurt, given the party’s struggle to elect more females.
“Her personal story is so powerful,” said Duff Hearon, a Tucson real estate developer and prominent GOP donor. “I think she’ll be in leadership early on.”
Let me stop you right there, Ms. Isenstadt. A political neophyte can run on a “personal story” narrative in their first race for political office, and on rare occasions, win. But this is Martha McSally’s third run for Congress, losing a special election primary to Jesse Kelly, and later losing a general election to Congressman Ron Barber. This precludes running a “personal story” narrative campaign — by your third campaign, people have heard it ad nauseam, they want to know substance: what do you stand for and what are you going to do for them? Martha McSally is not saying. We’re going to have to start calling her “Silent Sally” or some such moniker.
Sticking to talking points with military precision, she stresses she’s simply focused on the task at hand, “racing to the finish to replace Barber.”
At a time when moderates are an increasingly rare species in the GOP, the fact that McSally is running as one is crucial in a district with a long history of electing them.
* * *
McSally has taken some positions, such as supporting the recent Democratic-sponsored equal pay bill, that collide with many on the right. During a recent meet-and-greet with constituents here, she was asked several times if she embraced the principles of the tea party. Each time, she pushed back.
“I need you to be pragmatic,” she told one questioner.
McSally also is making gender a central part of her campaign — a tactic, Republican strategists say, aimed at cutting into the Democratic Party’s traditional advantage among female voters.
Simply being a woman does not mean that said woman supports policies beneficial to women. Just look to our Arizona Legislature for numerous examples of this.
During her 2012 campaign, in a questionnaire from a conservative group [Center for Arizona Policy], McSally said she supported repealing Obamacare and prohibiting abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother. She also said she supported amending the Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
* * *
In an interview over dinner at a Mexican restaurant, McSally said she is a better candidate this time around.
Or not . . .
[L]ast fall, the longtime Washington handicapper Stuart Rothenberg lit into McSally for refusing to say definitively whether she would have voted for or against the deal that ended the government shutdown, charging that it made her look like she was dodging the tough questions.
“McSally’s refusal to give an answer,” he wrote, “raises some disquieting questions about her and her campaign.”
Barber has latched on to that narrative.
“My opponent is hiding and people are wondering, basically, ‘What does she stand for?’” he said. “They know what I stand for. Whether they agree with me or not, they know who I am.”
In an interview with POLITICO, McSally declined to say whether she would’ve voted for the deal to reopen the government (“I’m against shutting down the government,” she said) or whether she supported Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s much-criticized budget plan (“I have concerns about the Ryan budget,” she said).
McSally shrugs off the notion she’s wishy-washy.
“When I have a staff and I’m in Congress, I’m going to do everything I can to actually help form the issues in front of us instead of having to answer, ‘Are you going to run on this? Are you going to run on that?’” she said.
Still, even Republicans who see much promise in McSally acknowledge she has a tough fight ahead and that there are no guarantees.
“If she doesn’t win, it doesn’t make a bit of difference, does it?” said Jim Click, the Arizona automotive king who is one of the GOP’s most prolific donors. “First, let’s get her elected, and then we’ll see what happens.”
Oh, so Jim Click is where McSally gets her cavalier attitude that voters should elect a blank slate — and let Jim Click fill in the slate later? I don’t think so. This demonstrates disrespect for the voters of CD 2. McSally only answers to her biggest donors. This should trouble you.
Modern GOP Democracy:”Do what the rich man says, you peasant!”