And then there were 2…Peckinpaugh quits debate
***Update below at bottom 11:54PM
***Update at bottom 10:46PM
Janet Peckinpaugh’s campaign press release follows:
2nd District Congressional Candidate Janet Peckinpaugh Welcomes a Fair, Balanced and Non-Partisan Debate
Essex-CT. June 14, 2010 – The Peckinpaugh for Congress campaign will not to take part in a candidate forum scheduled for June 16 sponsored by Free Norwich, which describes itself as “Eastern CT’s Right Wing Extremist HQ since 2007.”
“It is clear the organizers of this forum are biased in this race and therefore cannot be fair and balanced.” said Campaign Manager Mike Gionta. “Following a teleconference set up to develop the rules for the event, we found out the two organizers are supporters of Daria Novak’s and one of them has written an article critical of one of the candidates. It is clear to us this has evolved into a campaign rally for Novak and not a real forum to discuss the issues.”
The Peckinpaugh for Congress campaign has also discovered that one of the two organizers of the debate wrote just last month asking the delegation from Canterbury “to join us in a concerted effort to make Daria Novak our nominee.” Both organizers of this forum joined their Canterbury delegates who all voted for Ms. Novak at the May 21st statewide Republican Convention in Hartford.
“We invite any non-partisan group, such as the Chamber of Commerce or the League of Women Voters to hold a true debate for all of the candidates to share views and discuss issues important to the 2nd District.” Said Gionta.
Janet Peckinpaugh (R-Essex) a former television journalist in Connecticut has already earned the support of many current and former officeholders even though she is the newest candidate in the race.
For further information please contact Ed Munster at (860) 345-2225. Paid for by Peckinpaugh for Congress. Approved by Janet Peckinpaugh
————————————-
I’ll let the other organizers speak for themselves, but for me (Rich), I’m a supporter of both Doug and Daria (can’t consider Janet now), and I pledge to support the primary winning candidate financially and through physical effort.
————————————–
UPDATE 6/14/2010 10:46PM
Doug Dubitsky’s campaign responds -
As you will all see below, Janet Peckinpaugh’s campaign has decided that she not participate in the debate on Wednesday night at Three Rivers Community College. The reason offered is that the ‘organizers’, Free Norwich, are too biased (and favor Daria Novak). As a participant (for the Doug Dubitsky campaign) in the very conference call referenced below, let me offer the following:
First, if Free Norwich was so offensive to Janet Peckinpaugh’s managers, why bother participating in a call that lasted for two and a half hours. And why wait almost three days to make this decision?
Second, both of the ‘organizers’ are entitled – just as you and I – to support any candidate they wish. On the call, they were clear that only issues would be central to the debate. They were upfront about their support (and criticism) of candidate(s) participating in the debate. In fact, one recused himself from a particular topic due to a (personal) conflict. The debate rules and execution of the process were designed objectively and agreed upon by majority among the three campaigns – not the organizers.
You may interpret this candidate’s withdrawal announcement any way you wish. From my point of view, this is just another indication of more politics as usual – the same old game playing and saber rattling good Republicans are trying to detach ourselves from in Washington.
Please make every effort to attend the debate between Doug Dubitsky and Daria Novak on Wednesday night. The issues before us are real and serious. It’s a fair guess that both Joe Courtney and Janet Peckinpaugh will be watching with interest about what these two candidates have to say.
If you have any question, please feel free to phone me.
Margaret Jane DeRisio
***I deleted her phone number as everybody doesn’t need to see that 
– Rich
————————————–
UPDATE 6/14/10 11:54pm
Daria Novak Campaign responds -
Daria Novak remains excited about this debate and welcomes the opportunity to answer questions from the people of the 2nd District that she pledges to represent in Washington. It is unfortunate that Janet Peckinpaugh felt the need to withdraw from this debate when the people of the 2nd District deserve to hear from each candidate and gain a solid understanding of where each candidate stands on the critical issues.
we’ll see how this plays out…
interesting anyway since the questions are unknown and Lee Elci will moderate.
1She would fit right in with the current bunch we have there now…avoiding the public.
A debate on the issues…how threatening can that be?
2The above was suppose to read
“…current bunch in Conrgess, that we have there now…”
3Did they really say that they want a “non-partisan group such as the Chamber of Commerce or League of Women Voters to hold a TRUE debate…”
Yup…it would appear so. Unfortunately, numerous persons observed Janet agreeing to this debate BY freenorwich.com on at least two instances.
Definition from answers.com -
adj.
Based on, influenced by, affiliated with, or supporting the interests or policies of no single political party: a nonpartisan commission; nonpartisan opinions.
The GOP is a single political party. I’d think that the non-partisan events would come after a primary.
Make your own decision. Check the questions and format of the event on Wednesday @ 7PM at Three Rivers and let us know if this is a slanted event.
4One thing I don’t understand is this… If all the candidates are going to answer the same questions, how can the process be biased?
I supposed if Janet always had to answer first it would be. Was that the game plan?
Or maybe she thinks the organizers are going to cheat and show some candidates the question in advance?
Are there questions that could be softball to one candidate but hardball to others? Normally, there might be a ‘few’ like that for EACH candidate. No one is an expert at everything.
I have seen some videos of Janet answering questions. She did not seem to have a good handle on some of them. Perhaps she just thinks she cannot handle a debate right now?
I guess I just don’t get it.
5exactly.
6I hope it’s taped so we can copy and put out via cable publuc access to all 65 towns in CT 2nd district.
That is some wicked BULLSHIT! FreeN’s questions are less legitimate than others?
A “debate on the issues” How bleepin threatening can that be? BS!
Leauge of women voters and the Chamber are more legit? Yes Braemer, it should be put out there for all the district to see. Maybe when she gets her script down pat she may take a chance with us???hahahahahaha
Mike G and Herman Munster outa be kicked in the nuts! Then again it’s the usual political game. Your right Rich WT Hell is a TRUE debate in their mind. Never mind we already know that answer.
Take 3 Peckinpaugh hit your spot. Now to Ted with the weather.
7This is sadly reminiscent of actions that would be taken by the current holder of the CT 2nd Congressional District seat. Let’s not talk to the people, they might ask a question that I will have to answer truthfully. Very telling about Ms. Peckinpaugh, she will be missed at this event. I was looking forward to hearing from all of the candidates.
8I am for, as I have always been, any republican besides Joe Courtney. I voluntarily recused myself from any question selection because of the the Peckinpaugh piece ” Searching for Bobby Fisher in the 2nd”. I have merely served as an organizer of this event. (Not too partisan of one to schedule a room). During our conference call it was mentioned numerous times the questions should be ones any republican running for office should know.
The meeting was held democratically for over 2 hours. All issues were voted on, and the only 2 major sticking points from the Peckinpaugh campaign were: they wanted 6 minute introductions ( which would eliminate time for several questions) and to review the questions beforehand. We offered to have Chris Coutu or Rob Simmons or some other prominent republican sign off the the questions.
I stand by the position that we did everything possible to eliminate any sort of “partisan” bias in this debate and know the end result will be quite an embarrassment to the Peckinpaugh campaign.
9Wow…Peckinpaugh needs the questions ahead of time?!?! This is laughable – watch the you tube videos of her meet and greets – Ed Monster chimes in to quide her when answering questions from voters. Looks like Peckinpaugh isn’t all that bright…she doesn’t evern see she’s being used to fulfill Monster’s lost dream or representing the 2nd district.
I would like to personally thank Peckinpaugh for backing out of the debate – now I only have to choose between 2 candidates – she is OFF my list. No spine to debate the R candidates…equals NO passion for the campaign…at all!!!
Let’s see what Dubitsky and Novak have to offer – either one of these candidates has more fight in them – than Peckinpaugh.
10When running for office…you would think Peckinpaugh would want the opportunity to reach out to an audience that she may not agree with. Does she not realize that she would be debating two other repbulicans?
We The People are interested in the issues only…don’t need a 6 minute or even a 3 minute introduction…get right to the questions, so we are able to properly vet these candidates. Janet sounds a lot like King Courtney….could care less about what the voters want…it’s all about Janet.
Perhaps Janet would deate Doug and Daria if Media Matters, The Huffington Post or The New York Times were hosting the debate….pretty weak start for Peckingpaugh.
11I’d be happy to take her place just to drive the point home.
12QUESTIONS? You wanted to ask me QUESTIONS??? She just wanted to bore us to death with more political rhetoric! Good get her the hell out and let’s see some real candidates. One down who’s next!! Anything or anyone to do with Herman Munster is cooked IMO. I take it Paul, that was their “final answer”? Hey ya tried. Make no mistake, unless she is held up to the light (constantly) for not debating and not having a clue, many mental defecients will still see her face and vote for her. GD POLITICS.
Hey when in Rome??
13Mike
14I too would like to see and hear all of them but this is a tell. And it tells me me to get the heck away from Janet!
Dumb question perhaps dan, but why are you not in there???????
Cindy she is either unprepared or her “handlers” can’t take the heat. Either way it’s a purely political move that will probably haunt her.
To Dan – register Republican and we’d be glad to host you in two years!
15I’d hoped she would brush up on the topics of the day and have at it. As a candidate I’d think she would have jumped at the chance to show she had what it takes to run for the office. When you jump in late in the game and then refuse to be measured against the other candidates I just don’t see how you can hope to be elected.
16Free Norwich, the sponsors of this debate gave “the People” opportunity to asks a question of the candidates. How much more fair can you get?
I admire the format of this debate.
If Ms.Peckinpaugh is so afraid of the people, how can she possibly want to represent them in Washington?
I think it has little to do with the bias of the debate and everything to do with the candidate’s ability to debate and the character of her campaign!
17When a candidate decides not debate because they feel as though the group is not fair – well what are you going to do in DC? It is my understanding the conference call was fair and it was Janet’s team that kept crying it wasn’t fair. Come on – did she really expect to get a rolling red carpet for her? Grow up!!!!! My decision has been made and it is not for the Janet. It’s time to pack it up the make up back and go home!
18John D,
“Dumb question perhaps dan, but why are you not in there???????”
Not a dumb question at all… In fact, that’s a very good question I’m glad you asked. I’m not up for a game of Republican roullete where insiders make the rules. But I did think that a debate before the convention was an excellent idea –
http://www.realedealforcongress.com/handouts/newcandidateentersrace.pdf
The problem is that you need to be on the ballot in November in order to win, and a 43 day petition drive is nearly impossible. In one out of several hundred times, you get lucky and there are too many pieces for any one faction to control.
And let’s just say you do get lucky. If you lose the primary, it’s over because that’s all you focused on.
As far as the GOP machine goes, we really need to rethink this plan if all we can do so far nationally is dislodge a grand total of 3 insiders. Now in Texas (you’d think one of the best places for the GOP strategy) the only thing standing in the way of quite a few bailout voters is the Libertarian party (as in no other challengers).
But I’d be glad to participate in Peckingpaugh’s place, however impossible that is because the arrangements were already made. Otherwise, there will be plenty of forums in the future with all parties included.
Rich,
If you can find a way to dislodge most of the insiders, sign me up in 2012.
So if Schiff can somehow pull through, I’ll have reason to believe there’s enough of fair shot and this one fifth of the voters as a whole really wants change. Bear in mind that many of us already went through the 2008 election with Ron Paul (and Mike Huckabee for many conservatives), then McCain’s campaign somehow, defying all political reason and gravity itself, stormed to the front without any logical explaination whatsoever. They’re still using the 2008 playbook this year, and the outlook isn’t promising.
If this were Kentucky, Nevada or Utah, I’d have a fair shot in the GOP, but it just isn’t. In short, I’d really like to end this business of earmarks, unfunded mandates, bills that don’t get read before a vote and spending money we don’t have. I just had to go with a party whose will was set on that, that’s
all.
It’s all well and good to send Joe Courtney home, but we need to make sure that we actually replace him with something in the opposite direction when we do. There’s just no point otherwise.
Like I said, dislodge the insiders, and I’d be more than happy to do it. If I knew of a way to do that in time for this election, I’d have been there now.
19Dan,
As long as you keep coming up with excuses such as “because of the insiders”, you’ll never have a chance. Where have you shown up to say your piece? How many places have you actually shown up?
Doug and Daria’s remarks regarding the withdrawal of “the other candidate” speak to the reason they are the front runners fighting to run on the Republican ticket!
If Schiff shows some interest in this part of Connecticut, I’ll show some interest in supporting him.
20Such a shame that Peckinpaugh’s handlers decided to pull her off the stage for this debate. Debates are for the benefit of the voters not the candidates. If she isn’t capable of answering questions posed to all republican candidates…how will she plan on answering questioned posed by Coutney’s team?
Janet is off of my short list. The R ticket is down to 2 candidates for me…Novak or Dubitsky.
Janet’s actions are obviously speaking louder than her words…NO passion for this race.
21In Plainfield, she did not have a problem with Free Norwich. In fact, I have her on video giving Free Norwich the OK! Why did she change her mind?
22Free Norwich might ask her a question that’s not in the script her “handlers” gave her! Can you link the video Mike? We should pass it around? Though playing Devil’s advocate, it might give her free publicity if it was shown to everyone?
They knew full well what Free N was when they agreed to the debate. Heck with it, show what she and her staff pulled and with such a lame reason!
23I was just thinkin. Rich’s original article quoted
“It is clear the organizers of this forum are biased in this race and therefore cannot be fair and balanced.” said Campaign Manager Mike Gionta.”
Biased??? Questions FreeN will ask are gonna be the same questions every voter in the US is gonna ask? How can one be unfair or unbalanced thru a question that most will ask?? Maybe they are afraid of hecklers with signs or better yet more applause for Dubitsky or Novak. Aside from that, what the heck is missing? Harder questions from us versus softballs from the Chamber or LOWVoters. Pure political BS. She’s off any list of mine after this stunt!
24Ray
25You are right on regarding Doug and Daria. And I too wish Schiff would at least make a trip into the heart of a district he wants to represent. Keep ur GD mailers and ads. I wanna see and hear you in person! I did catch a bit of him on CPR. I would like to hear more. Quite interesting!
Ray,
It’s not an excuse on the insiders. It’s a well known fact.
And like I said to Rich, I’m down on going for the GOP nomination if you can remove the insiders or find a way to remove them (who by the way, are working in the opposite direction of yours). Political parties are private organizations, not public ones. Your recourse is only civil action when the break the rules, and by the time you can even get a hearing, it’s too late to make a difference. Let’s not be naive about this going forward.
There’s just no sense on focusing on a fifth of the voters with an establishment rigged to fail when you can address all of them from the onset – and focus on getting on the general election ballot instead of just the primary with only a chance that you’ll be on the general election ballot.
And I go everywhere around the district to say my piece among all voters (which doesn’t limit my attention to Republicans, BTW). If I’m allowed to participate in an event, I go – no questions asked, no matter how hostile I may percieve it to be (hint to debate dodgers). When that isn’t happening, I’m petitioning, in which case I go. In between both, I’m working.
And I’ll see you Wednesday – look forward to meeting you
26Ray,
I do want to add that if it was Simmons running and switching races, the decision would’ve already been made even if a whole bunch of other people with comprehensive, constitutionally sound answers ran. Still, despite the lengthy and substantial record on this, the kinds of things he did that Democrats are pushing and the party complains about somehow don’t stick to him in the collective mind of that one fifth of voters. And when you point out the contradiction, the collective mind of that one fifth percieves it as a baseless attack on the military or a nice guy. We agree that he’s a nice guy with a solid military record, but we’re not talking about that when the issues comes up.
The senate race showed that the GOP here would look for any excuse not to learn more, and I say that while faulting Schiff’s campaign for using the wrong playbook on this and not being around here more. It’s one thing to demand that a candidate show up, but the other half is an active attempt to learn.
Any time you want to change direction toward the Constitution and against the types of things Democrats are doing would be the time that I can work with you. This congressional race just isn’t it. I can only meet you halfway. You have to do the other half. Both sides must be committed to a meeting of the minds.
Conversely, I can have a meeting of the minds with the tea party at large as well as independent voters. This is something I’d pointed out to Ed Munster yesterday. I can have a meeting of the minds with rank and file members of both major parties. What’s impossible is a meeting of the minds with the decision makers in both major parties because their minds were set before this started.
27I has a chance to speak with Janet away from all of her handlers at the Republican convention. Janet had a good grasp of the issues and could speak to them, however, speaking to the issues is not enough. Trying to speak to Janet before the convention was going though six layers of Ed Munster before I could…”Well why do YOU need to speak with her?”
This decision from her camp shows two things to me: 1) She is not in charge of her campaign, Ed Munster and a group of his cronies is. 2) The fact that she did not over ride their decisions shows poor leadership.
If you are walking into a Democrat controlled Congress is 2011 as a freshman congressman, you’d better be ready to fight if you expect to get anywhere…backing out of this debate shows that she isn’t ready for that kind of a fight.
28How is Janet to handle reporting of the press that may or may not have voted in her favor if she were to win the primary? Would she bail out of any debate run by anyone who had not voted for her? This will likely be a regrettable choice by Janet and her campaign staff.
29CTLIB
“If you are walking into a Democrat controlled Congress is 2011 as a freshman congressman, you’d better be ready to fight if you expect to get anywhere…backing out of this debate shows that she isn’t ready for that kind of a fight.”
RayS
‘How is Janet to handle reporting of the press that may or may not have voted in her favor if she were to win the primary? Would she bail out of any debate run by anyone who had not voted for her? This will likely be a regrettable choice by Janet and her campaign staff.”
BINGO
Again devils advocate. Face recognition? Don’t chuckle it works. In this case unfortunately! It’s early too. Politics changes by the minute.
30Face/Name recognition may work, but I don’t think it will be enough here. here are two excellent grassroots campaigns out there working very, very hard. They are getting the message out. Daria Novak’s campaign is well organized and her supports are energized. Doug Dubitsky entered the race six (+/-) weeks ago and yet he managed beat out a candidate who had been in the race a year (Matt Daly) and a woman with face recognition (Peckenpaugh) in the first round of balloting…and brought it within 20 votes by the last round.
Peckenpaugh’s camp keeping her secluded isn’t going to do her any favors…if she wants to win the primary, she needs to get out there, be heard, and energize those Republicans who may not otherwise vote in the Primary to get out and do so, because while she may have some appeal over the other candidates in a general election, independents and “disaffected democrats” don’t vote in a primary!
31YUP!!! I agree.
32CTLibRepublican,
As far as Peckinpaugh goes, it makes perfect sense. The GOP got all it needed from the tea party movement, and now it sees them as expendible “right wing extremists”.
That’s straight out of the two party textbook. Think back to what McCain did in the 2008 debates. Instead of proposing an actual solution and pointing out how ridiculous Obama’s proposals were (which required actual proposals of his own, which are beside the point), he wanted to talk about Bill Ayers…
What’s more is that it will work. The Peckingpaugh camp and the insiders would prefer to burn down the ship here (or permanently damage it so Courtney wins, which means they can bring back a neocon in 2012) than to actually change what’s going on.
Will this be enough to win the primary? I think so. The reason we have so many independents is because they figured this out already (not that the Democrats are different by any means). Will it be enough to beat Courtney? Definitely not…
Left-wing, right-wing and moderate voters all have choices this time around – none being Democrat or Republican. The deal breaker is that if you vote third party, you at least have some gaurantee as to what you’re voting for.
33Don’t speak for the GOP or Republicans Dan. You’re not either, so you have no right to speak for us. We welcome the Tea Party movement. Their support will help us elect candidates who are truly conservative and will give them the support to stay the course once elected.
The only thing voting for a third party is, is a vote wasted. There is no guarantee what a candidate will do once elected, especially one that no one knows.
34Ray,
I’m not speaking for your party. All I’m doing is putting the pieces together on this. And I say this fully aware that you, the Canterbury GOP and most small town RTCs didn’t get the memo. You were left out of the loop.
Your thesis on wasted votes is predicated entirely on your success in making sure this doesn’t play out as well as your ability to keep neoconservatives far away from the levers of power.
There are no 100% gaurantees on what anyone will do in office – but events being what they are, a basic gaurantee isn’t too much to ask. Unless we’re prepared to roll back the expansion of federal government to pre 2000 levels, balancing the budget by 2019 (or ever for that matter) is a pipe dream.
As it stands, the GOP is no different than someone who refuses to get a checkup in fear that he may discover a cancerous tumor. Whether you go or not doesn’t change the tumor – but whether you go or not has a lot to do with your odds of recieving treatment. And working within the GOP in the same way no matter what is like consuming 10 Big Macs and two bottles of whiskey while bathing in radioactive waste every day and not expecting the same tumor.
I argue that the patient has six months before treatment is impossible. Everyone going into the party without addressing the structure itself has only prolonged the suffering.
Do whatever you can with the information and let’s hope this works out. But do be aware that logical grounds to complain about spoilers or unconstitutional practices have been removed for those pushing toward a repeat of 1994 and the Bush victory six years later (which is exactly what repeating the same things will do).
This is the time to be really focused on that – in the beginning. When Obama takes over in the first year of his presidency and all the wheels were set in motion by the Republican Congresses before (and the Dems only made it go faster), it’s too late to complain about Bush. Those Republicans who only complain about Democrats like it was only them should have complained in the beginning – while they had a chance to get a basic gaurantee and interrupt the cycle.
Some Republicans get it. Others don’t get it. The sooner it’s understood, the sooner corrective action can be taken. Every time we repeat this, it becomes harder to correct. It should also be understood that if we’re still repeating this in six years, there will be no correction at the federal level.
And were I an active Republican, I’d be more concerned about a victory than I would losing the election. Without some way to hold nominees to account, the backlash will be much more severe than what the Democrats are experiencing now. That should frighten the GOP leadership, but it doesn’t.
So at this point, I’ll just leave the Republican Party at that. Have it it, and I wish the best of luck to you, but don’t say this came as a surprise after November.
35Dan,
No offense, but you are putting the pieces together all wrong.
Peckenpaugh may very well be the face of the “establishment”. At the convention I heard many people say “State Central thinks they can manipulate us with a pretty face and a popular name and think we will vote for?” The rank and file of the Republican Party didn’t go for it and she placed a distant third at the Convention.
But she gets to go on to the Primary. You’re thinking she’ll clean up. After skipping the Free Norwich Debate AND coupled with the face that it is a CLOSED primary, I don’t think she will fare much better in the Primary than she did at the Convention. Any reasonable person can see this is the landscape NOW, but I don’t think her handlers are reasonable, otherwise she would have been at the debate putting her ideas forward.
It is really going to be a horse race between Dubitsky and Novak. They put their ideas out there the other night. Regardless of what I think, its up to the voters to decide. Either way, neither Dubitsky or Novak are “establishment” candidates. Can they beat Courtney? That remains to be seen. I think one of them, if they do things right, stand a much better chance of beating him than any of the other candidates on the 2nd District ticket, no offense.
And the way to hold our officials accountable is at the ballot box. They don’t do what they say they would do, vote them out. Courtney has been a sock puppet for Pelosi (97.9% voting record with her) and not a strong advocate for the district or the country. He needs to be bounced out of office. If Dubitsky, Novak or you go to DC and don’t do what you promise, I’ll be working to bounce you in two years, too, even if I am the lone voice in the wilderness and have to run. We have to remember for all their promises, how much can a freshman congressman from ANY major or 3rd party change DC? Unless there is a seismic shift, it ain’t happening.
36I has a chance to speak with Janet away from all of her handlers at the Republican convention. Janet had a good grasp of the issues and could speak to them, however, speaking to the issues is not enough. Trying to speak to Janet before the convention was going though six layers of Ed Munster before I could…”Well why do YOU need to speak with her?”
This decision from her camp shows two things to me: 1) She is not in charge of her campaign, Ed Munster and a group of his cronies is. 2) The fact that she did not over ride their decisions shows poor leadership.
If you are walking into a Democrat controlled Congress is 2011 as a freshman congressman, you’d better be ready to fight if you expect to get anywhere…backing out of this debate shows that she isn’t ready for that kind of a fight.
37As an interested passer-by — a lone wolf tea-partier in New London — I’d like to offer a bit of feed-back. I sought out this site, and this article, after seeing it reported (at http://bit.ly/9PwoBZ) that FreeNorwich billed itself as “right-wing extremist”. Now it so happens that I get the “joke” and/or allusion — Hillary’s imaginary “vast right wing conspiracy”, Goldwater’s “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” statement, etc. but thanks in no small part to our failed education system (e.g. http://bit.ly/dBvs2l), and the sanctimonious Fourth Estate, most people read “right-wing” and think of juntas, white sheets, and swastikas — or at very least, John Birch. This seems self-destructive PR to me. Note how the WCBS article links “Free Norwich”, “a tea party group”, and “right-wing extremists.” Given that the Left is prone to believe its own propaganda, and has no sense of humor, I might think FreeNorwich might have been more circumspect with its own branding.
That said, it seems to me that the establishment GOP might well have seen it as more important to deprecate the annoying “tea party” than have Ms. Peckinpaugh participate in any debate, however wholesome. FreeNorwich’s self-branding made this all too easy, indeed irresistible. That the candidate played along — or could be made to play along — says nothing of her courage. But I have to say, from where I sit, it looks like FreeNorwich shot itself in the foot here, and unnecessarily exposed others of the tea party movement to a facile unflattering characterization — unless of course you really do burn crosses. I don’t actually know your group. Thing about me is, I am more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt than most.
She gets publicity for snubbing “right-wing extremists” and tea party gets splattered as “right-wing extremists” — and not in the good sense of the term. Would not a professional political consultant, call that a “no-brainer”?
38What Peckinpaugh gets is no votes from the tea party people…and seeing as she has no base…she has no votes. The woman has been in hiding ever since the convention.
She might have name recognition, but it is starting to look like she is a “No-see-em”
39CTLibRepublican,
The primary reason Peckinpaugh would clean house is that your thesis (no offense) is the standard GOP operating thought among its rank and file. Unless something changes between now and then (and the Peckinpaugh camp doesn’t sling mud or the GOP membership finds a way to address that), expect Janet to win the primary and lose the election.
Whoever takes my offer (http://realedealforcongress.com/handouts/offertoGOPcandidates.pdf) will be an unstoppable force. That’s the only way to beat Courtney on the Republican end. And I’d be more than happy if someone stepped forward to accept the offer – it’s a win-win for everyone.
If no Republican does by July 20th, no Republican will win – and we’d be better off in that case becuase no one would have the cover of something they’re not. The thing that should terrify the GOP is winning the election and not even trying to deliver what was promised. If the GOP wishes to do this right, they’ll make certain to eliminate the possibility of selling out before it can even happen. If there isn’t a siesmic shift in 2010, the GOP backing down as it always does will certainly create it.
There’s more than one way to hold our elected officials accountable aside from the ballot box. Had we known this and made use of of it, we wouldn’t even be talking about Obamacare.
And the key to what I’ve done and what the GOP hopefuls should be doing is simple – time is short at the federal level. If we’re only going to rely on the ballot box and refuse to insist that no additional committment be made, then we lose two years for whoever goes back on their word. And in Washington within the two party system, you have every reason to go back on your word; in the major parties, there are more than ample tools to get you to back down – even Ron Paul admits that there are limits to what he can do as a Republican.
Regardless, no one can give up before he or she has even arrived. We can say we can’t change DC all we want, but it’s a matter of creativity, persistence and observation – no more excuses of “well, if only the (insert party here) party had more seats, then we could do this”. We’ve been there and done that for 60+ years. Each election we say “throw the bums out”, the default situation being a seperate clique of bums, and in turn, we take another poll a year after said throwing out indicating a consensus where 80%+ think the country is going in the wrong election. And that’s also a result of saying what we can or can’t do before we’ve even tried.
Karina,
From a standpoint assuming that you want to win over the rank and file, the Peckinpaugh camp has exhibited poor leadership.
From the standpoint of the GOP textbook (which works excellently for the most pro establishment candidates), this was a calculated and precise move based on what works to win a major party primary.
Mr. Thayer,
I’d expected the GOP to do this in every single instance the tea party wasn’t willing to play ball. Their attitude is to play up the tea party every time it follows orders (as in Scott Brown) or cast it aside every time it fails to follow orders.
40