Yesterday I rated 4 of the 9 Republicans running for the nomination in this open seat district on a wingnuterry scale. Today, I'll get to the remaining 5. Under normal circumstances in this R+10 district (and perhaps this year is not normal), the winner of the Republican nomination is essentially the winner of the seat. So we should know who we might be dealing with.
To recap:
Chris Exarchos netted a measly 1 wingnut.
John Krupa netted 9 winguts.
Lou Radkowski netted 3 wingnuts.
Keith Richardson netted 8 wingnuts.
The scale: Obviously, there are different forms of wingnuttery. There's the religious kind, the anti-tax/anti-government kind, among others. I'll use a scale of 1-5 wingnuts for each of these categories.
Candidates starting alphabetically:
Matt Shaner: Everybody's favorite silver spoon Republican with that little incident in his past. Many of us feel like his nomination would give us the best shot at flipping the district in November. And he sure is trying to buy the nomination. I actually listened to about a half hour of a conference call he did last night. He is not the brightest bulb.
Religious wingnuttery:
Shaner is a Santorum wannabe. He worked for Santorum too. Surprisingly, his website isn't too obvious about his religious wingnuttery. Many mentions of "traditional values" and one specific mention each of "protecting marriage" and "culture of life." He talked more about these issues in the conference call too. Still not as bad as Krupa though.
Anti-tax/government wingnuttery:
Shaner hates earmarks! He really really hates them! And taxes are bad! Keep the federal government out of our lives (except the bedroom, of course).
Other issues: Shaner blanketed the airwaves with this anti-immigration commercial. Typical "surge is working" rhetoric.
Bottom line: Shaner is a young wingnut (28) with lots of money. He is dangerous, but flawed. If he wins the nomination, we'll desperately need some independent Dem groups to run ads highlighting the incident, and hope to pull off a Chris Carney-type upset in this red district.
Jeff Stroehmann: Stroehmann has enough money to run ads, likely because he is of the Stroehmann Bakery Stroehmanns. Unlike the other 2 well-funded candidates, Stroehmann is older and has actually held elective office before. So maybe he's in this thing, It's hard to tell.
Religious wingnuttery:
Stroehmann, like Krupa, has a special issue statement about how poor persecuted relgion needs protecting. He also highlights being pro-life.
Anti-tax/government wingnuttery:
His website has the typical tax cuts, death tax, reining in spending rhetoric. I remember reading a statement from him about trade though (as part of the local paper's Q&A series) where he bashed free trade agreements for sending jobs oveseas. I was very surprised that he hadn't gotten the party line on that one. Unfortunately, the piece is no longer available on-line.
Other issues: His language in relation to the War on Terror and Iraq is particularly agressive. I must say that his advocacy of re-tooled railroad use and brownfields redevelopment is a refreshing change though.
Bottom line: As the oldest and most experienced of the cash-flush 3, Stroehmann could get the nomination and the seat, I think.
John Stroup: Stroup is one of only 3 candidates from the large western part of the district. And he is the closest to Peterson. If Peterson endorses him, that could unite the western Republicans behind Stroup, easily winning against the split up eastern field. That has been what historically happens in this district.
Religious wingnuttery:
Stroup doesn't really mention any of the big religious right issues. He does have a section about protecting "freedoms" where he complains about activist judges. Alito and Roberst are teh bestest!
Anti-tax/government wingnuttery:
Ditto on the typical tax cuts rhetoric for Stroup. He mentions 'entitlements" a couple times too.
Other issues:
I have to give him an extra wingnut here. Many of his issue statements have something intangibly tin-foil in them. He keeps referring to "those" and "some" who say or do this or that very bad thing. There's something icky about him.
Bottom line: He's not getting much traction in the large field, but that could all change with a Peterson endorsement. I hope his ickyness is just bad writing.
Glenn Thompson: Thompson is long-time chair of the Centre County GOP, which I'm sure gives him some good connections. But he admits that he is running his campaign "on a shoestring." Next to Exarchos, he probably has the most experience of any of the 9.
Religious wingnuttery:
Thompson says he is pro-life. Otherwise, he is pretty non-specific, although his tag line is about "values"
Anti-tax/government wingnuttery:
Tax cuts will solve everything, doncha know.
Other issues: Nothing really stands out about his other issue statements. They are what you would expect.
Bottom line: If he could compete moneywise, I would say he'd be the typical older male partisan who should do well.
Derek Walker: Another young (32) rich Republican who is blanketing the district with ads. He comes from coal wealth.
Religious wingnuttery:
His website hits on both aboortion and gay marriage. His ads creep me out more because they keep using the words "faith" and "worship" with that typical voice-over and grand music.
Anti-tax/government wingnuttery:
Ok this section is just getting repetitive now. How many ways can I say this: Republican candidates love to talk about tax cuts.
Other issues: Of note is his complete lack of reference to alternative energy or clean energy - I think every other Republican at least mentions this as part of a larger energy independence plan. Perhaps this isn't surprising given Walker's family history, but here is what he says:
Our region has been blessed with unmatched natural resources including timber, natural gas, coal and other minerals. As our Congressman, Derek will use these natural resources to create new jobs, retain current jobs and help the United States gain energy independence
That deserves another wingnut, don't you think?
Bottom line: He's got the money to compete. He's got the GOP vote from the second most populous county in the district all to himself. He could emerge with the nomination and the seat, which would be a tragedy considering his young age!
Well, kids, that's enough rummaging through Republicans' websites. I'll get back to talking about our 3 great Democratic candidates in my next diary.