2nd Congressional District (OH) GOP Primary: An Attempted Coronation for Bouncin' Bob McEwen?

Former Congressman Bob McEwen wants his old job back. Thursday McEwen announced his candidacy for the G.O.P. nomination to succeed newly-appointed Trade Representative Rob Portman as the representative for the heavily Republican 2nd Congressional District. Portman has been nominated by President Bush to become the next U.S. trade representative. As in 1993, when he lost to Portman in a primary, McEwen has had to buy a home in the district to establish residency. Observers view McEwen and Ohio state representative Tom Brinkman as vying for the support of social conservatives, who are not particularly happy with the perceived front-runner in the G.O.P. primary, Hamilton County Commissioner Pat DeWine.

Maybe DeWine (son of Senator Mike DeWine) was the perceived favorite then, but I get the sense that this race is wide open. Anyone who can mount a credible three-week radio and TV blitz and drown out his or her opponents can take advantage of what will almost certainly be a low-turnout primary on June 14 and win. (The 2nd District is drawn in such a way that the GOP primary winner, assuming he or she still has a pulse, will be a heavy favorite to win the August 2 Special Election.)

So when I first heard expensive talk-radio ads for McEwen on Friday, the antennae went up.

It turns out that Bouncin’ Bob has assembled quite a list of heavyweight endorsements: James Dobson, Paul Weyrich, Jack Kemp, Ed Meese, Anthony Munoz, and numerous other Christian and prolife bigwigs. I suspect that quite a stash of campaign cash has accompanied some of these endorsements.

What in the world is going on here? Why is the GOP establishment lining up behind Bouncin’ Bob McEwen?

Full post is at my blog. I think McEwen is the last guy Republicans should put in Congress. He's also carpetbagging, having lived in Washington most of the past 12 years and moving into the district only on April 11.

BUT... the National GOP, "moral" leaders, and apparently some big money are behind McEwen, who was voted out of the 6th District in 1992 after his heavy involvement in the House Bank Scandal.

There are plenty of other acceptable candidates on the primary ballot. I resent the national GOP's attempt to impose its will on this district, especially with such a flawed candidate.

McEwen could get in with name recognition. To be fair to McEwen, if he weren't a flawed guy and if he had lived/worked in the district instead of feathering his nest in Washington, he'd be a good choice, because a RINO he is NOT. But neither is Brinkman or 1-2 of the others.

Given your handle and my vote for W in 2000 and 2004, I'm really troubled, and I'm guessing you are too, that the GOP leadership, and it appears with Karl Rove's blessing, is pushing Check Bouncin' Carpetbaggin' Bob.

And the endorsement of the various "moral stalwarts" like Dobson and Willkie (prolife movement pioneer) makes me wonder what's gotten into them (or if some of them just don't know about the House Bank).

As my post indicated, these same people would go crazy if Rosty tried to make a comeback, so why does McEwen get a pass?

Given your handle and my vote for W in 2000 and 2004, I'm really troubled, and I'm guessing you are too, that the GOP leadership, and it appears with Karl Rove's blessing, is pushing Check Bouncin' Carpetbaggin' Bob.

Interfering in primaries by outsiders (even Rove) is not something I appreciate in the least.

Just FYI, I live in District 2 and had the chance to speak with McEwen at a campaign event. I asked him point blank about the check issue and here is what he said:

1) The FBI did a complete investigation and he (along with now-Senator Mike DeWine) received a letter of exhoneration from them.

2) The reason he bounced the checks is because he travelled to his district on a weekly basis. His practice was to write a check to get some cash for travel, and settle up upon his return to DC.

3) He admits it was a mistake to be careless regarding his balance, but when all was said and done, everything checked out and his account was balanced.

4) He said he understood why some would never vote for him because of this issue. He says he believes he handled it poorly during the campaign in the early 1990's by ignoring it and not explaining it, and if it comes up again in this race, he said he would be happy to face it head on this time and "take his lumps."

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. So now, the question becomes, who do you vote for?

Everyone I speak with that knows McEwen says he is the genuine article - he is a tried and true conservative. While Brinkman may hold very similar views, I have heard through a contact that he has all but admitted that he can't win this race.

I'm told he is only running so that he can help split the vote in favor of DeWine, thus opening DeWine's Commissioner seat so Brinkman can slip in there when he is term-limited out.

That, in my opinion, would be the wrong move for the people of this district and I hope Brinkman does the honorable thing and pulls out of the race.

I spoke with McEwen about 2 hours ago (he called me).

He went through the exoneration thing, and I'll even say somewhat convincingly, but I told him he should post the exculpatory evidence on his web site. I should have, but didn't, tell him that if he does it now he gets the bad news out of the way and he won't have to worry about it in mid-July.

His reaction was not to do that. I e-mailed one of his campaigners and suggested that he do so in hopes he listens to that person.

We'll see.

I still can't get past the idea that he is an outsider flown in by the national party to essentially hijack this district and take it away from Pat DeWine, against whom there is a (to me) shocking level of antab

Geez that will teach me to hit the enter key accidentally.

There is a lot of antagonism against DeWine over his divorce and affair, and it's almost as if the "moral" leaders are ganging up on him to teach him (and other politicians who would stray) a lesson.

They could have done that by throwing their money and endorsements at Brinkman, but NOOOO. They had to fly in an outsider who IMHO they think they can control better (Brinkman can be a bit of a free spirit at times).

I think it is good to hear he explained himself in what seems like an honest manner and that he rectified the situation.
I think the bigger problem for McEwen in this campaign is the "carpetbagger" opinion that some people have of him.
McEwen is a true conservative but he just has some things going against him in this race.
As far as Brinkman in the race just to get into DeWine's Hamilton County Commissioner seat should DeWine win, I do not believe that at all. Should DeWine win this race, I think you will see the Hamilton County Republican Party look at someone more "establishment" than Brinkman. Brinkman would be term-limited in 2008 from the Ohio House of Representatives. The Senate seat for that district would be open in 2010.

Sounds like my money to the party would right now be better served helping former U.S. Rep. Bob McEwen beat DeWine to teach the old man a lesson about loyalty.

McEwen has his own character issues with the check overdrafts from when he was in Congress. People around here are alos not terribly impressed by the fact that he managed to lose two elections trying to get back to Congress, then went to DC. He lived in Virginia and was a fat-cat lobbyist. In so doing, he was nowhere to be found for 12 years around here. The he suddenly parachutes back into the district when the seat becomes empty.

There is also former State rep Jean Schmidt, who has a good conservative record on most issues, except that she backed a state sales tax hike last year.

For my money, and my time and effort, state rep Tom Brinkman is THE MAN. He is truly conservative (except on the death penalty, which in its current state at thefederal level is hardly worth mentioning). He has the voting record and the personal integrity to back it up, too. www.gobrinkman.com

I find your views on Bob McEwen very interesting. How could someone living in this district dislike the man so much? Either you were on a losing campaign against him in the past or you are currently on the side of one of his many opponents. I personally was an employee for Pat DeWine for about a week before I decided that I could no longer defend the man nor live with myself defending his life style. The reason I say that is because I find it very troubling that a Republican, especially a self-described conservative, could have so many bad words about a man who stands for everything a conservative represents. Yes, he was involved in a what became a controversy when he was in Congress but was NEVER found guilty of any wrong doing. And my hero, Rob Portman, told Bob after being personally asked if he (Rob) could truly say that Bob had done anything illegal said no Bob had not be found doing anything illegal.

In conclusion, I find many and most of the candidates on the Republican side as very true conservatives except for Mr. DeWine of course and that one guy that is Pro-Choice. What matters for me is that we have a man with a proven record of conservative values who can bring this district immediate seniority with 12 years in Congress. It will take Jean Schmidt or Pat DeWine or Tom Brinkman several years to even be noticed by the leadership in the House. That is my opinion on this primary. I find this logic to be very reasonable. I understand people wanting to see local political favorites making it to Congress but let's be frank. It is always nice to have an influential Congressperson in Washington.

I dislike McEwen intensely because he lost a safe district because of his conduct (6th in 1992, lost to Ted Strickland), because he opportunistically moved to the District next door just a few weeks later as if he was entitled to be a Congressman by divine right, and thankfully lost (March 1993 to Portman), and because after being out of town for 12 freaking years he opportunistically comes back and STILL seems to think he is entitled to be a Congressman by divine right.

As to the "not guilty of wrongdoing," I have pointed out at my blog that the voters in the two districts above rejected him AFTER the so-called clearance in the House Bank Scandal. The "clearance" was 9/23/1992 before the Nov. 1992 and March 16 elections. How many bleeping hints does a guy need to get lost?

The HBS was really a symbol of the entitlement mentality so many mostly Dem congressmen had after 40 years of control. The fact that McEwen was a participant made me sick. The fact that he didn't step aside in a redistricting situation and let the untainted Republican take the primary was worse. Then, losing to Strickland.

I have never been an active campaigner. I gave Mike Azinger a little help in his unsuccessful bid against Strickland in 2000, and gained a greater appreciation of what McEwen had squandered in incumbency.

I suggest you continue to read my blog posts in the next few days, because McEwen in the past 12 years has gotten involved with people and things that would even disappoint you, I think. Like this one:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=176

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.