The Hill: "Ensign to get a free pass"
There is some troubling news to pass on from Nevada. The Hill's Peter Savodnik reports today that the state's Democratic establishment has all but decided not to challenge conservative Senator John Ensign (R-NV) in 2006:
Many leading Nevada Democrats say they will give Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) a pass when he seeks reelection next year — in part, they add, because of Ensign’s close relationship with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
State Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins (D), who is expected to announce his gubernatorial candidacy in the coming months, said Democrats would focus on state offices in 2006.“All six of the constitutional offices are held by Republicans right now, and we think we have great opportunities there, particularly because all six will be leaving office,” Perkins said. Besides the governorship, there will also be races for secretary of state, attorney general and other offices.
Ellen Pillard, the Sierra Club’s political chairwoman for Nevada and eastern California and a Democratic activist, agreed that the “D’s are focused very much on the governor’s race.” She added that Ensign has a substantial war chest; his father is in the gambling industry, meaning Ensign can count on support from that sector, and “he works very well with Harry Reid.”
This decision by Nevada Dems could not come at a worse time. The Democrats in the West are in ascendancy today, but it's imperative for them to maintain their momentum. Refusing to challenge someone like Ensign is a detriment to both the state party and Democrats in the region as it sends a signal that they can't compete there -- which is clearly not true.
DSCC spokesman Phil Singer intimates that Washington Dems have yet to give up on the seat completely. “If he thinks he’s going to get a free pass, he’s running at his own peril.” Nevertheless, without the complete support of the state party and, more importantly, its activists, any challenge to Ensign will likely be futile.
It is totally understandable that a state's Senators work together to ensure comity and to reap as many benefits as possible for their state. Oregon, where Ron Wyden (D) and Gordon Smith (R) have refrained from campaigning against one another, is a prime example of this. On the other hand, it would be foolish for every Democrat to give his Republican counterpart a free pass to the Senate, especially in Western states that are tending blue.
Hopefully Nevada's Democrats will pay heed of the DSCC and at least force Ensign to spend a few million of his dollars. Who knows? Maybe with the right twist of fate (a la Kentucky in 2004), the race will become winnable for the Democrats, and they will be one step closer to taking the Senate.
Jonathan Singer | April 13, 2005 | Comment on This Post (6 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Jonathan, welcome! I've really enjoyed you're blog and I'm happy to see you posting over here too.
I agree, this would be the second straight time that we give a literal free pass to a western GOP Senator, and we can't let what happenned in Idaho last year repeat in Nevada. I'm all for focussing on winnable races, and the governor's mansion in Nevada is much more attractive to me than Esign's seat, but a free pass is something all together different.
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Apr 13, 2005 12:11:57 PM
I agree; we should at least try to challenge him. 06 could be a rough year for Republicans, and we should at least try to go after every seat we can. Still, I can understand the DSCC focusing more on other races; if it means knocking out Santorum, I wouldn't mind losing Nevada.
Posted by: PantslessYoda1 | Apr 14, 2005 7:22:35 AM
Respectfully offering a competing viewpoint:
The oft-repeated argument that nationally democrats are too focused cycle by cycle on winning the white house at the expense of building the party, plays out similarly at the state level in Nevada.
Keeping Jim Gibbons out of the Governor's mansion is priority number one for the state's Dems, and is a very achievable goal. He's a dullard and a reactionary who would set the state's already third world human service and education systems back decades. Also within reach (provided the rumored candidates step up) are the AG's race, the Lt. Gov, making gains in the State Senate and further consolidating power in the Assembly.
There is a pretty compelling reason NOT to field a candidate against Ensign:
1) Ensign is popular. He's articulate, slick and his promise keeper identity is kept under wraps with a Mr. Nice Guy image and strong Vegas/gaming ties.
2) There is NO credible challenger on the horizon. None (they all want to be governor.)
3) Putting someone up against Ensign virtually ensures an avalanche of Rep Senate $$$ will be dumped on Nevada, ensuring a high GOP turnout that will snuff out the very real Dem gains that can be made in '06.
I can understand that "out - o - staters" would be aghast that no one would step forward to challenge Ensign (who is indeed a Republican of the worst kind.) But this site is all about building the party from the ground up in Western states over the long term. There's something to be said for stepping back from the cycle by cycle national focus so many would like to impose on Nevada.
I would be thrilled to see a challenge to Ensign, but I will take more satisfaction in seeing Gibbons go down in flames when he runs for Gov. There has been no "decision" not to run a challenge to Ensign, it's just that the options for a challenge are limited to say the least, and that there are real motivations, as mentioned above, to not view the situation as a calamity.
This state is about to go blue in a big way, and viewing the lack of a challenger to Ensign as a "failure", when there's very real progress being made in developing the state's farm team, is a mistake. Going for hail mary touch downs Senate race after Senate race is not the path to building the Democratic party in the West.
Posted by: sagesnow | Apr 14, 2005 7:43:57 AM
Here's what should happen in the Ensign (and other similar) situations: encourage an up-and-coming state senator or rep who will most likely lose (but be ready in case Ensign implodes somehow). This person will then have statewide exposure (having hopefully run a positive campaign) and be ready for future races. Who knows -- it might be the next Brian Schweitzer. The Dems will be putting forth a credible challenger, but not wasting DSCC money or drawing out high Rep turnout.
Posted by: paul h | Apr 14, 2005 2:55:01 PM
Sounds good to me.
Posted by: Emmett O'Connell | Apr 14, 2005 3:20:59 PM
I'ld like to underscore what sagesnow wrote above -- that while Ensign is an embarrassment, the state party is not asleep at the wheel here. There are two factors at work that need to be recognized -- first that Reid is at the moment wildly popular and highly respected in all wings of the state party and really everyone in the state -- the (conservative) press, the (republican) state government, the (moderate) NSDP and the progressive activists. In short, no one here really wants to do anything without Reid's imprimateur and if Reid made a deal with Ensign, that isn't making anyone here unhappy. Up and down the line, people trust Reid's judgement -- a lot more than DC-based DNC folks whose bad judgement, many here feel, cost us the state last November.
Second, there is a very strong and palpable sense here that 2004 was a watershed and the future is ours. Ensign, unlike Gibbons, doesn't stand in the way of that future; Ensign has been on the right side of issues that get the most press here -- Yucca Mt, Tahoe, revenues from public land sales, land use generally.
Not that his positions are admirable or enlightened but you'ld have a hard time tying Ensign to Frist/ DeLay or even Bush in the minds of most NV voters.
I'm personally disappointed we couldn't recruit a good candidate to take him on but this is a far cry from 2002 when we had no one to run for anything.
Posted by: desmoulins | Apr 18, 2005 12:32:06 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
