Joe Abbey: We're very confident. Still working hard for every last vote

Just off a quick conference call with Joe Abbey, Creigh's campaign manager.

Won't even attempt to put it into prose. Here were his main points:

- Having a great election day.

- We have not seen anything over the last 24 hours to contradict what we have seen in recent polls.

- We had a huge surge in volunteers

- Big increase in donations

- Seeing incredible energy and excitement

- Only thing that has changed in the last 24 hours is Terry Mcauliffe's tone and the attitude of his campaign. Before, he talked about himself. Now, he just wants to talk about Creigh.

- Mentioned the internal poll put out by the McAuliffe camp showing a dead heat between Creigh and McAuliffe. Sample size was only 200. Pollster wouldn't even allow his name on it. "I'm surprised they got the results out of Montana so quickly."

- We feel very good about our position.

- Turnout in C'ville very hight

- Turnout in the valley is very high

- Happy about what we're seeing in Richmond/Tidewater

- Think statewide turnout will be 5-6%

- Weather affected NoVA early, but after that, not too much.

- Surveying C'ville and environs, turnout already exceeds 2006.

- Very confident. Working hard for every last vote.

Five Reasons To Vote For Creigh Deeds Today

Finally, Election Day.

It has been a tough campaign at times, but not that tough compared to many campaigns. For all the complaining about “negative attacks,” there is for the most part a good amount of civility practiced in Virginia politics.

In that spirit, I wish both Brian Moran and Terry McAuliffe the best of luck.

But Creigh Deeds is the best choice for Democrats to nominate. Here are five important reasons why:

1. He is the most experienced and the most ready to be Governor on day one;

2. He has a Progressive vision for Virginia in terms of education, encouraging economic development for the entire Commonwealth and in encouraging economic justice for all citizens;

3. He is a pragmatist, able to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans to accomplish his goals for the benefit of Virginians.

4. Because he is from a rural area, he is uniquely positioned to break through the regional logjam that has prevented a solution to the transportation issues in our state;

5. He is dedicated to using his power as Governor to force non-partisan redistricting upon the Commonwealth. This will profoundly change the relationship between our government in Richmond and the Commonwealth’s citizens, and set the stage for continuing and Progressive reform for the next generation.

Obama's Targeting Director Sees Deeds' Victory As Most Likely

Froma Q&A at FiveThirtyEight with Ken Strasma, President Obama's National Targeting Director in 2008, on tomorrow's election:

You got to know Virginia demography pretty well in 2008. Any predictions on what will happen Tuesday in the Virginia primary?

The key in Virginia as that we don’t yet know the demographics of the primary electorate. The Democratic primary electorate in VA has been changing over the last several cycles. The share of the Democratic primary vote coming from Northern Virginal more than doubled between 2001 and the 2008 presidential primary. We’ll see on Tuesday who does the best job of turning out their vote.

Most public polling is showing Deeds and Moran gaining and McAuliffe dropping, but the numbers are close enough that a good GOTV operation could make the difference for any one of the three candidates. I see the most likely outcome as a Deeds win, but McAuliffe could still win if Deeds and Moran continue to split the “non-McAuliffe” vote. If Moran’s supporters begin to defect to Deeds then there is probably no way for McAuliffe to win what would then be functionally a 2-person race against Deeds.

Deeds Takes Commanding Lead In PPP Poll

When even the pollster hedges this much, take it with a grain of salt. I remain on pins and needles.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/06/deeds-takes-strong-lead.html

Hit Me With Your Best Shot: My Favorite Attack On Creigh

Ever since the CW realized that Creigh may actually win this thing, and as we've come down to the wire, the attacks have been coming in fast and furious. All of them have been seen before and were easily batted away, at least on a substantive level, although it has been tough to keep up with the sheer volume.

Of all the attacks that have been levelled at Creigh recently, my favorite, by far, has been by a Moran supporter who offered the following reason why Creigh ought not to be the Democratic nominee:

But there is another reason ... Deeds' won't win, and it's played out very clearly in the primary race: Deeds is a milquetoast wimp that doesn't have any fight in him.

The whole time McAuliffe ran around this state making specious claims about his profligate business background, Creigh Deeds was silent. Brian Moran, on the other hand, took the gloves off and went to work. Moran and McAuliffe traded body blow after body blow and each got bloodied up pretty well. Moran for going negative (in other words, talking about McAuliffe's record, propensity for exaggeration and general seediness - see Telergy), McAuliffe... well... for being McAuliffe.

Now, after Brian Moran exposed McAuliffe as the less-than-honest huckster shill that he is, now that McAuliffe is tanking across the state, now that Brian Moran has shown that he has what it takes to stand up and fight for the state that he has served for 3 decades... Well... He deserves our appreciation. More than that: he deserves our votes.

Creigh Deeds has been a shrinking violet this entire campaign season. He's done nothing to distinguish himself and shouldn't be allowed to back into the nomination having done nothing to earn it.

Hilarious.

I don't know if they hand out awards for negative attacks, but if they do, this ought to win one.

Gunning for Creigh - McAuliffe and Moran Toss the Hail Mary

There are two worthwhile things to note about the furious push on now in Northern Virginia to paint Creigh as an extremist on guns.

1. Neither McAuliffe nor Moran, apparently, are thinking past Tuesday at this point. Should either of them pull it out in the primary, their trashing of Creigh for his principled adherence to the Second Amendment, even though it resulted in policies with which the disagreed, will come back to haunt them. It didn't have to be this way. Guns would not be an issue in this campaign, except for the fact that Moran and Mcauliffe have now made it one should either of them win. Democrats come out on the shortside of that debate in a general election.

2. The battle is being fought against Creigh in NoVA. Moran and McAuliffe are playing defense on their home turf, while Creigh is on offense. I suspect that neither campaign figured Creigh to ever become a factor up there -- they thought they'd be fighting each other for NoVA votes. This speaks volumes about where this race is heading.

Actually, there are probably more than two items worthy of note, but it was all my limited brain could come up with right now. In any event, it adds up to desperation time.

PPP Poll Preview: Almost All Undecideds Moving In Same Direction

Last night and this morning brought two posts on the PPP blog. The first is very interesting.

Last night, Tom Jensen, PPP's communications director, wrote:

Looks like a tight race in Virginia...for second place. The undecideds seem to almost all be moving in the same direction. ... But it doesn't look like things are going to be as close on Tuesday as the polling in the last week suggested.

Take your pick about who is out in front (you know who I think it is).

This morning, Tom said they would try to get the results out between 10 and 11 tonight.

Election Special: Comparing the Candidates' Records

Some of my good friends in the blogosphere who support Terry McAuliffe, quick to cry “foul” at any whiff of negativity directed at their candidate, have proffered the following defense of their own man’s negative attacks: The negative attacks are not negative attacks at all. Rather, they assert, these are important and highly relevant comparisons of the candidates’ respective records. If those comparisons paint Creigh and Brian in a negative light, they contend, that’s the fault of the facts, not of the McAuliffe campaign, which is just bringing the facts to light.

I’m not sure I buy the logic of that for a variety of reasons, although I am impressed by the creativity and surface appeal of the argument.

Still, with two days left to go until the election, I am more interested in debating substance than semantics, so for now I will accept the position of my McAuliffe friends on this matter and both stick to comparing the candidate’s records and not complain when they do the same.

I want to emphasize comparing record, as distinct from comparing the record of one candidate to the campaign promises, rhetoric and platforms of another, for the latter do not comprise a record. After all, the point of looking at a record is that a candidate can say anything when running for office, but a record of votes or actions taken at another time when the person’s objective was not earning statewide votes is more reliable evidence of where they really stand.

So, as a service to my readers (and the three of you know who you are), and in light of the shortening hours until election day, I pulled an all-nighter last night in order to put together a complete comparative examination of the records of Creigh and Brian Moran, respectively, versus that of McAuliffe’s on some of the key issues facing the Commonwealth. So, without further ado, the McAuliffe record:

1. Terry’s record of action on solving Virginia’s transportation crisis:

[chirping]

2. Terry’s record of action on bringing alternative energy to Virginia, or implementing policies designed to improve efficiency:

[more chirping]

3. Terry’s record of action on payday lending:

[even more chirping]

4. Terry's record of action on redistricting:

[silence -- crickets got tired]

Well, it looks like I’m going to have to cancel that comparison of records, because Terry McAuliffe has no record to compare with the other candidates.

Look, McAuliffe’s no carpetbagger – he’s lived in the Commonwealth for 17 years – but the fact is that before launching his run for Governor, McAuliffe demonstrated zero interest in what went on in the Commonwealth.

I understand why McAuliffe and his supporters want only to compare records with Creigh and Moran when it comes to negative attacks. It’s a one-way street; when you don’t have a record, there is nothing for the other guy to attack.

What I don’t understand is, if a candidate’s record matters so much, as McAuliffe and his supports tacitly acknowledge in their argument that comparing records is fair game, what does McAuliffe’s complete lack of one say?

Brian "the Joker" Moran Up To His Old Tricks

Well, the Brian Moran slime machine is out in full force, and as usual it is full of half-truths, misrepresentations and distortions.

This time the target is Creigh Deeds, apparently explaining Brian’s newest tag line, “We need a fighter, not a dedicated, decent, intelligent public servant.”

Which brings me to Brian’s interview today with NBC12. Before I get to the substance, I just want ask what is the story with that grimace? Did Brian accidentally fall into a vat of toxic chemicals on his last visit to Gotham City?

Despite being freaked out, onto the substance.

Here is what Brian said about Creigh’s record on guns:

Well, it's extreme. He's the only Democrat who's ever received an endorsement from the NRA since 1989, I mean that's different from Warner, Kaine or myself or Jim Webb... There are some positions where I believe he's taken extreme positions. He voted against my legislation to keep guns out of the hands of those convicted of stalking and domestic abuse. He also voted against one gun a month, which was Doug Wilder's legislation. He also voted for guns in bars and family restaurants. That puts him on a very extreme position, and we're educating the voters with respect to that extreme position on guns.

Well, Lowell at Blue Virginia, one of Brian’s most aggressive critics this election season, checked it out. He found HB436, a piece of proposed legislation from 1998, that fit the bill. “This appears to be it,” Lowell said, adding later, “Moran appears to be correct on this one.”

Or not.

Yes, the Committee on Criminal Justice failed to report the bill out, as Lowell says, with Creigh voting against. But as anyone who has ever followed the legislative process, committee votes get cast for all sorts of tactical reasons unrelated to the substance of the legislation at issue.

That is what I suspect happened here.

Why do I think that?

Well, here’s the crazy thing. Moran refers to this bill as “My legislation,” presumably because he was a co-patron of the bill (not the chief patron, another piece of phony Moran self-puffery). But more importantly, guess who else was a co-patron of the bill?

That’s right. Creigh Deeds.

So, if this is Brian Moran’s legislation, then it’s Creigh’s legislation also.

Look, do I know what happened here? Do I know why Creigh voted no in committee against a bill for which he was a patron? No, I don’t. And I don’t care. It was 11 years ago, and I seriously doubt Creigh or Brian recall the machinations that were flying around at the time.

The more relevant point today, for purposes of Tuesday, is that this sort of Mickey Mouse negative attack is part of a larger pattern that the Moran campaign has been following. When Brian Moran or his campaign tells you something negative about another candidate, whether Terry McAuliffe or Creigh, far too often it seems you are not getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Brian Moran: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

When the Brian Moran campaign criticized Terrence McAuliffe for accepting out-of-state campaign contributions, when Moran himself had accepted such donations in a significant amount, I attributed the gaffe to the fact that it was early in the campaign and his campaign needed to get their sea legs.

When the Moran campaign made his opposition to the Surrey coal plant the moral centerpiece of his campaign, even though Moran had voted in favor of a coal plant in Wise, I was merely bemused since I don't really know much about environmental politics.

When the Moran campaign criticized Creigh for his Marshall-Newman vote, saying he needed to be held "accountable," even though Moran had an anti-gay marriage vote record in his background, I attributed it to poor research by his staff of a perhaps obscure vote five years ago. (But when his campaign tried to explain away that vote as having been wrongly recorded, despite the presence of contemporaneous comments from Moran himself showing he was against gay marriage, I attributed it to political malpractice.)

When Brian Moran misstated the procedure for amending the Virgina Constitution on Mark Plotkin's radio show last week, I just felt bad for him.

Now, however, that the Moran campaign has sent out a mailer attacking Creigh on his record on guns, with the headline, "By working so hard to get the NRA's approval, Creigh Deeds has lost ours," just several days after Brian rang up the endorsement of gun rights group opencarry.org, well, now I can only conclude that the Moran campaign is a gift from the blogging gods.

Here is what Opencarry.org had to say about Brian Moran:

Moran has some pretty good pro-gun votes on his record, including voting FOR HB535 in 2005 to legalize carrying concealed handguns in school parking lots, as well as FOR HB 530 in 2004 to preempt all local gun control laws, even those in his home city of Alexandria.

Oh, and by the way, just for the record, here is what they had to say about Creigh Deeds:

But why not vote for Creigh Deeds, of Bath County?

For 2 reasons: (1) Deeds is less likely to catch McAuliffe than Moran [oops!]; and (2) voters need to send a message to Virginia politicians like Deeds (who recently began supporting a ban on private gun sales at gun shows) that caving in on gun rights principles to run for state office will not be tolerated! We cannot afford to allow the Washington Post’s new poster boy for gun control to be elected as Virginia’s next Governor.

And last, but not least, with respect to that NRA approval of Creigh that makes him lose our approval -- Well, the NRA gives Brian Moran an "A" rating, so he has their approval, too.

[shaking my head in pity now]

Anyway, a quick word about Creigh and guns. I am not going to waste time explaining or trying to rationalize his record. Creigh has said many times that his support for gun rights is a matter of principle for him, based on his interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Now, as a legal matter, I disagree with Creigh (and the Supreme Court, for that matter) about the meaning and precise rights created by the Second Amendment, but I certainly respect, morally and intellectually, someone who thoughtfully interprets that Amendment differently that I and acts accordingly.

In this sense, the Moran ad is defamatory in suggesting that Creigh "worked so hard to get the NRA's approval." He did not. He was merely following his beliefs and his principles with respect to the Second Amendment.

I'm curious what Brian Moran believes in this subject area. What does the Second Amendment mean to him?

Based on this mailer, it appears he apparently doesn't care much about it at all. For him, it appears, guns are just another commodity to be regulated, merely a subject of policy, without any constitutional implications. another subject on which he can pander to his NoVA constituency while hiding a record that directly contradicts his rhetoric.

And yet, his own votes and positions have earned him an "A" from the NRA, and an endorsement from opencarry.org. Who, I ask, is the candidate "working hard" to gain the approval of the gun lobby, principles be damned?

I don't agree with Creigh on this issue at all, but I respect the Hell out him for following his deeply held principles in a responsible manner designed to protect the public safety, for his willingness to, if you'll pardon the obvious pun, stick to his guns.

But more importantly, once again, thank you, Brian Moran. Thank you blogging gods!

The Super Voters and Creigh

According to Joe Abbey, Creigh’s campaign manager, if turnout remains under 200,000 voters, the contest will in all likelihood be decided by the “super voter” — the kind of Democratic activists who never miss an election.

If so, Creigh looks on track to have a good shot at winning this thing.

Who do these super voters support? No one can say definitively, but based on some interesting data in the last two PPP polls, it seems they lean decisively to Creigh.

In the last two polls, one issued June 2 and one issued May 22, PPP asked whether the voter participated only in the 2008 primary, or voted in the 2005, 2006 or 2007 primaries, as a proxy for separating dedicated Democratic voters from mere mortals.

In the June 2 poll, among those who voted in 2005, 2006 or 2007, results were as follows:

Deeds: 32
McAuliffe: 23
Moran: 26
Undecided: 20

Compare these numbers to the poll’s toplines:

Deeds: 27
McAuliffe: 24
Moran: 22
Undecided: 27

How are these super voters breaking in these final weeks?

In the May 22 poll, among those who voted in 2005, 2006 or 2007, results were as follows (followed by the difference with the later poll):

Deeds: 26
McAuliffe: 23
Moran: 21
Undecided: 30

And the change from the May 22 poll to the June 2 poll:

Deeds: +6
McAuliffe: No change
Moran: +5
Undecided: -10

It is fairly clear that dedicated Democratic voters are breaking evenly, for now, between Creigh and Moran. Whether one or the other will ultimately seize control is hard to say, but one thing seem fairly certain: they will not be breaking for McAuliffe.

Brian Moran vs. Candidate Moran

Blue Virginia has a post up about Brian Moran's interview with Mark Plotkin on Friday. Plotkin's a tough interview, so kudos to Moran for even taking it on. Creigh, too, who tangled with Plotkin on May 22 and did not come away unscathed..

And those guys are going back for more later this week. (I believe McAuliffe has refused several invitations to Plotkin's show, but the two have had a dialogue, of sorts, through the media.)

Anyway, I agree with Lowell about Moran's dismal performance on this interview. At times, it was tough to listen to, and I say that as an advocate for a rival candidate, and as a humble blogger who holds the opinion that Brian Moran is not going to win this primary (with the proviso that predictions and opinions like mine count for nothing -- that's why they actually hold elections). And while I have written critically about Moran and the campaign he has run, I'm also aware that many people whose opinion I respect (and some whose I don't) are unalterably in his corner.

I'll take no joy in Moran's defeat, if it comes to pass, and sincerely hope that he will remain in public life, perhaps come back to run again for office.

But back to the election before us now.

To me, this debacle of an interview speaks to the fact that Brian Moran has been way too handled in this election, rather than just being himself. He seems so focused on staking out positions to simply win the primary that he has proven incapable of communicating who he is as a person, which I suspect, based on the ardor of his supporters, is much more attractive than he proved to be as a candidate. The end result has been a series of gaffes.

* How could Moran have made such a big deal of opposing the coal plant in Surry after voting for the one in Wise, without also being able to explain away, in 30 seconds, the inconsistency in those positions?

* How could Moran have criticized Terry McAuliffe for out of state fundraising when he had done so much of it himself?

* How could Moran say Creigh should be held accountable for his Marshall-Newman votes while he, himself, had voted against gay marriage in 2002?

And it continues in the Plotkin interview. The most painful part for me was Moran getting the procedure wrong wrong for amending the State Constitution -- he said it required votes in two consecutive sessions, when in fact the Virginia Constitution specifically requires an intervening House of Delegates election -- a very important requirement. Again, this just seems so much worse in light of Moran's snarky comment to McAuliffe at the Annandale debate about not having time to teach him the legislative process in Virginia.

Sigh. Live by the snark, die by the snark.

Similarly, when you make gay marriage rights the centerpiece of your campaign, when you grandstand about it and get sanctimonious about it, how can you go half-way on the issue? Oh, I understand the tactical rationale at play, how the definition of marriage is a wedge issue that ignites passions among and possibly favor the right wing of American politics, while civil unions is more easily presented as a more benign anti-discrimination issue, but when you make gay rights an issue of right or wrong, or good vs. evil, then you can't hedge on your commitment to that without seeming like your position is simply designed to pander to an interest group.

But that is, unfortunately, what Brian Moran appears to be doing in this interview. Here is the salient part:

MORAN: My opposition to the Marshall-Newman Amendment has been criticized by my opponents. Hey, Jim Webb opposed that, Mark Warner campaigned against it, Tim Kaine opposed it.

PLOTKIN: Tell people what the Marshall-Newman Amendment is.

MORAN: That placed discriminatory language in our Constitution. It banned civil unions and contracts between same sex individuals.

PLOTKIN: So, are you for civil unions or are you for same-sex marriage?

MORAN: Not for same sex marriage.

Huh? Not for same sex marriage?

Wait a sec. Didn't Moran call the passage of Marshall-Newman "one of the darker days in my 13 years of service in the legislature." Didn't he say, I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against[,]"

And shouldn't gay people have the same exact rights -- including the right to marry the person they love -- as heterosexual people? And isn't the denial of that right a form of discrimination, even if it replaced by a measure like civil unions? Yes and yes.

Perhaps realizing his untenable position, Brian quickly fell back on a talking point he introduced at the Annandale debate, namely, it is premature to have a discussion about these issues:

MORAN: I believe in equality. We can’t even have a discussion in Virginia right now regarding civil unions or contracts between same sex individuals. I think they should have contracts to allow them hospital visitation, domestic partner benefits, insurance. There’s a whole number of rights we can provide…

PLOTKIN: And as long as the Marshall-Newman amendment is in, you can’t have that conversation?

MORAN: You can’t even have that conversation, Mark.

PLOTKIN: So what would you do as Governor?

MORAN: I would work to repeal it so we can have that conversation

PLOTKIN: How do you repeal a Constitutional amendment?

MORAN: You use the bully pulpit to gain support in the legislature.

Not have a discussion? That left me utterly confused. This is exactly the time to talk about it.

Even though I think Brian Moran's pledge to repeal the Marshall-Newman Amendment is unrealistic, I praised his position and his willingness to discuss the subject precisely because these issues need to be discussed. Changing the votes on this issue in the General Assembly is not simply a matter of electing more Democrats; it is a matter of our leaders showing a willingness to discuss the subject and educate people about it. As I have said about this in the past:

Moran is ... right that if Virginia is to make progress on this critical issue, the next Governor needs to be willing to make it a priority to at least discuss it and begin the process of gathering public support behind the repeal of the Amendment. Moran’s admonition to McAuliffe that it won’t happen if you say “you don’t have the time,” even if that slightly distorts what McAuliffe actually said, is absolutely correct.

I'm not going to call on Moran to explain his position. And this is in no way meant to diminish the support he has shown to the GBLT community over the years. That community supports him, and it's not my place to question that. And the crazy thing is, my sense is that in his heart, citizen Moran thinks marriage ought to be available to all equally, even if Candidate Moran won't say it.

“Equality is a fundamental value that makes us Democrats,” Moran said in response to an endorsement from a gay rights interest group recently. “I’m proud that the Virginia Partisans recognizes my career-long fight to break down barriers and ensure equality. Virginians know where I will stand on this issue because they know where I have stood. Leadership isn’t easy.”

Next Week's PPP Poll Looks To Hold Good News For Creigh

From the PPP Blog:

-Our second to last Virginia primary poll. That one's a surprise so far too although we'll be in the field a couple more days. Looks like the WaPo endorsement could really make a difference.

(h/t Chris Guy at Fred2Blue)

Governor's Race: Comparing the Candidates

With only 14 days remaining until the primary, I thought I would try to hone down and prioritize the key issues as they have emerged in the primary battle, and evaluate the candidates with respect to these key issues.

Notwithstanding the mantra of “jobs, jobs, jobs” repeated by the candidates, the fact is that there are not wide policy differences between our candidates. Given that, the three key issues that should be of concern to the Democratic primary voter are as follows:

1. Electability. Which candidate has the best shot of beating McDonnell?
2. Vision. Which candidate has articulated a positive and pragmatic vision for the Commonwealth’s future?
3. Capability. Which candidate will make the best, most effective Governor, able to begin work from day one and make the most of his four years?

Here is the rank of each candidate in these respective areas, with a very brief analysis

Electability

First Place: Creigh Deeds. He is a Democrat that hails from a rural part of the state, allowing him to benefit from the strong Democratic organization in NoVA while also appealing to large numbers of voters in other parts of the state. In 2005, he fought McDonnell to a draw, despite being outspent two-to-one. That won’t happen this time – both sides will have plenty of money.

Second Place: Brian Moran. As a NoVA liberal, Moran will have trouble gaining the support he will need in the rest of Virginia to win the election, even with strong support in NoVA. He differs from Mark Warner in this regard, as Warner ran specifically as a businessman and a moderate who sought to directly appeal to rural voters. But Moran has campaigned across the Commonwealth for many years and has contacts throughout the state.

Last Place: Terrence McAuliffe. He brings fundraising ability, but we probably won’t need that in the general. Otherwise, he brings a lifetime history of wheeling and dealing in sketchy deals, and the fact that while he has lived here for 17 years, apparently, he has spent 16 of them not spending any time thinking about Virginia.

Vision

First Place: Creigh Deeds. With respect to the three most critical issues facing Virginia, transportation, energy and education, Creigh has articulated a clear vision. With respect to transportation, Creigh has told voters across the states that it is a statewide problem in which rural areas need to support the efforts of NoVA and Hampton Roads in building more roads and mass transit systems. With respect to energy, Creigh takes the common-sense proposition that we ought not to take anything off the table until science takes it off the table, while also communicating a strong affirmative vision of developing alternative energy sources and continuing research across the state, using it to power not only our cars and homes, but also Virginia’s economic engine. On education, Creigh speaks of a network of community colleges across the Commonwealth, so every resident is within an hour’s drive, and utilizing the capabilities of the Commonwealth’s many great universities to drive economic development through energy research and development of new technologies. Lastly, his promise to enforce redistricting one way or another will return the General Assembly to its rightful owners: the citizens of Virginia.

Second Place: Brian Moran. His campaign theme of a “fighter, not a fundraiser” flopped badly for a variety of reasons, but as this contest wore on Moran’s campaign failed to articulate a clear message of any kind beyond “Defeat Terry McAuliffe.” What was worse, even those attacks backfired, as criticism leveled on McAuliffe on such subjects as fundraising invariably boomeranged back on Moran. Still, Moran has a strong reputation in Virginia as a fighter for Progressive causes, and despite, IMHO, having run a poor campaign, he had and has plenty of good will in the bank.

Last Place: Terrence McAuliffe. The vision McAuliffe brings to the race is encapsulated in his line, “Not all great ideas come from Richmond.” This outsider meme worked great for Barack Obama after eight years of Bush-Cheney. As I have said, I don’t think the outsider meme will work in a state where the Governor is (a) a Democrat, fer cryin’ out loud; and (b) enjoys a favorability rating above 50%. But whatever.

Ability to be an Effective Governor

First Place: Creigh Deeds. Creigh has 20+ years experience in the House of Delegates and the State Senate. He has run a statewide campaign. Creigh has crafted legislation that has gathered the support from both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate, most recently his compromise for closing the gun show loophole and his legislation for non-partisan redistricting. Republicans and Democrats alike respect him throughout the Commonwealth. He hails from a rural area, but clearly understands and appreciates the needs of Virginia’s urban areas, particularly when it comes to transportation. Creigh is, by far, the best-prepared candidate to be governor and to put his credentials up against Bob McDonnell in a general election.

Second Place: Brian Moran. Brian Moran has significant legislative experience, but he has never been a member of a majority party in the HoD, and has not really crafted coalitions to pass controversial legislation. He did pass Alicia’s Law, but a subject like that is not controversial and does not test legislative skills. That said, Moran fought tough for Progressive principles in his 20 years in the House of Delegates, and he deserves our praise and thanks for that, but he has not shown the ability to govern or to build coalitions that are the hallmark of an effective Governor.

Last Place: Terrence McAuliffe: Lived in Virginia for 17 years. Paid attention to Virginia issues for one year. Do the math.

Creigh's Progressive Cred

Now that Creigh has gained the endorsement of the Washington Post, and now that several recent polls are showing a clear trend in his direction, enough such that purveyors of the conventional wisdom believe that Creigh now has a legitimate shot at this thing, he can expect more criticism from the other campaigns -- what the McAuliffe campaign might refer to as “negative attacks.”

One meme that has already seen the light of day is the myth that Creigh is not a strong Progressive.

It is a charge that is utterly without merit. The fact is that Creigh has a strong Progressive record, one that is all the more impressive given that the district he represents is more conservative than many. As the Washington Post wrote in its endorsement last week:

Some progressive voters may look past Mr. Deeds, assuming he's too far to the right on social issues. They should look again. … Yes, he describes himself as a supporter of the Second Amendment. He's willing, however, to put limits on gun ownership when the stakes are highest, brokering a compromise in an effort to close the state's notorious gun show loophole. His support for abortion rights and for an amendment to prohibit the Confederate flag emblem from being displayed on state license plates are all the more impressive considering the weight of conservative voters in his district.

Still, it was an article last week in the very same Washington Post by Anita Kumar that signaled the emergence of this particular “negative attack.” Entitled “Conservatism Could Hurt Deeds in the Democratic Race,” the article lacked any specificity or context whatsoever – it was heavy on general allegations and sweeping conclusions, but short on actual facts and convincing reasoning – and to me it had the smell of an oppo research foundation dump that, from time-to-time, the MSM inadvisably repeats uncritically and convinces itself constitutes original reporting.

For example, here are some of the key “facts” Kumar offers to support her thesis that Creigh’s “votes on several politically charged issues could put him out of step with voters in next month's Democratic primary:”

Those [Conservative] votes have included support for a family life program in schools that would define abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage as "moral obligations and not matters of personal opinion or personal choice," a mandate that the words "In God We Trust" be displayed prominently in every school and a bill to increase the penalty for killing a fetus.

First, in addressing this, a point of personal privilege. These positions are not “Conservative” or “Non-Progressive” in any classical, or even common sense understanding of those terms, IMHO. As a political approach toward governing, Progressive philosophy reflects a view that government can be an active catalyst for and implementer of specific policies designed to advance society and the well-being of people in general, with a safety net of minimum standards in place to protect all from the worst human nature has to offer, namely, the moral tyranny of the majority and the competitive excesses of the free market. In this sense, Progressive ideology is the opposite of Conservatism, which advocates the removal of government from most societal intercourse in the belief that natural forces and instincts, mainly selfishness, whether in an organized market or in the day-to-day interaction within a community, will ultimately benefit the society the most by stimulating innovation and incenting risk-taking that propels humanity forward, albeit with a small minority benefiting greatly at the expense of many.

That said, these votes by Creigh are neither Progressive nor Conservative. Rather, they reflect certain traditional values that are typically, but incorrectly in my view, associated with Conservative ideology. However, the point of this post is not to debate the meaning of Progressivism in contemporary American political life and society. While that is certainly an important issue, we can possibly and probably debate it forever without ever reaching a resolution, and we’ve got an election in 16 days.

The question really is whether there is any validity to the charge that Creigh is not a Progressive.

For example, Lowell at Blue Virginia responded to Kumar’s article with a post of his own, explaining that while he liked and respected Creigh, “as a progressive, I disagree with him on a wide variety of issues. Strongly, in some cases (e.g., mountaintop removal mining). Today's Washington Post story by Anita Kumar pretty much sums it up.”

So, it is back to Kumar’s article (although to be fair to Lowell, he has felt this way with respect to Creigh, certainly on environmental issues, for the duration of the campaign).

Still, the fact of the matter is that Lowell cites several items from Kumar’s article. But Kumar left a great deal of context out of her story that may surprise you.

For example, she makes these votes on these social issues sound like very Conservative votes demanded by Creigh’s rural constituency.

Would it surprise you to learn that Brian Moran, touted as the “most Progressive” candidate in the race, supported each of these laws, as well? Don’t take my word for it: Look it up yourself – here are the bill numbers:

SB 1047 (1999 Sess.) – Abstinence Education
HB 1 (2004 Sess.) – Increased Penalty for Feticide
HB 108 (2002 Sess.) – Posting “In God We Trust” in All Schools

Here is some other context Kumar left out. Each of these bills received overwhelming, nearly unanimous support in the General Assembly. While Kumar’s article suggests some divide over these issues between Creigh and NoVA, you wouldn’t know it by how legislators from Northern Virginia voted. There was no dispute over these measures reflecting ideology, political party or region of the Commonwealth.

Third, Kumar asserts that Creigh “voted to void contracts between members of the same sex that would have provided rights associated with marriage, such as hospital visits.” I am not sure what law Kumar is referencing here, but if it is the notorious HB 751, Creigh did vote for an early iteration of that noxious bill, but later re-evaluated and voted against it because he deemed it mean-spirited. In no sense of the word can he be said to support that legislation.

Fourth, Kumar of course brings up Creigh’s votes on Marshall-Newman, but Creigh has made his position on this clear. First, he personally voted against the Amendment when it was on the ballot, but even more importantly, he has evolved in his thinking about his own vote.

How refreshing: A candidate who admits to intellectual growth and explains how he has learned from past actions.

More meaningful than cherry-picking a couple of votes out of 50,000 cast to create conflict where there is none, a more salient guide for the Progressive voter are Creigh’s interest group ratings, which in my mind clearly establish his Progressive bona fides. Here is a sampling from recent years:

Reproductive Rights
NARAL- 100% (2006)
Planned Parenthood- 100% (2002)
Education-
Virginia Education Association- 100% (2006)
Virginia Education Association- 100% (2002)
Environment
Virginia League of Conservation Voters- 88% (2006)
Virginia League of Conservation Voters- 100% (2004)
Labor
Virginia AFL-CIO- 100% (2006)

As with any candidate, it is fair to examine their record and decide whether you agree with them or not. That is what democracy is all about. But in describing the records of each candidate with the use of familiar shorthand terms, we ought to be fair, IMHO, and any fair reading of Creigh’s record as a whole makes clear he is a strong Progressive.

I suppose there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Creigh, although I can’t think of any off-hand. His commitment to principles of Progressive governance, however, is not one of them.

WaPo Endorsement: Creigh!

By now, the news has started to circulate that the Washington Post has endorsed Creigh.

Not only has the Post endorsed him, it has done so for the right reasons. The Post said:

However, delve a bit deeper, and the answer might surprise you. In 18 years in the General Assembly, Mr. Deeds has time and again supported measures that might be unpopular with his rural constituency but that are the right thing to do, for Northern Virginia and the state as a whole. He has demonstrated an understanding of the problems that matter most, the commitment to solve them and the capacity to get things done. Mr. Deeds may not be the obvious choice in the June 9 primary, but he's the right one.

This is a critical point: Creigh is the best candidate for NoVA, in part because he is not from there. As the Post states:

As he once told The Post, "A gentleman from Lunenburg County called me up to say, 'I don't want my taxes to go up so they can build roads in Northern Virginia.' I said, 'Who do you think is paying for your schools?' Right now, the economic engine that has been driving Virginia has serious transportation woes. It's in the interest of every single Virginian, no matter where he or she lives, to fix that problem."

This is not a new insight. It is an issue the Virginia Democrat touched on in this Post, Creigh's Unifying Vision, a while back.

I would just add the importance of Creigh's vision for redistricting reform as an engine for enduring Progressive reform in the Commonwealth. The Post touches on this, but doesn't give a lot of attention. Virginia is becoming more Progressive every day, which is why it is becoming "bluer." A governor committed to redistricting that is not seeking an advantage for either political party, but which seeks to more accurately reflect the desires of the voters, regardless of where those desires lead, naturally favors Progressive causes. The alternative, to do business as we have been doing it, will leave entrenched forces of Conservatism in key legislative posts not because it reflects the will of voters, but because it reflects the will of a political class consisting of both Democrats and Republicans who benefit from current gridlock.

Creigh just doesn't talk about redistricting reform -- he has a specific plan on how to accomplish it, whether the General Assembly cooperates with him or not, so the success of this critical part of his platform is not dependent on the long-shot of a Democratic House of Delegates. Furthermore, given McDonnell's recent flip-flop on the redistricting issue, Creigh is the Democrat best-positioned to make hay out of this critical issue in the Fall. It is the kind of issue that can take hold in a campaign, because it is about returning power to the people.

See Creigh and Redistricting: Changing the Calculus of Virginia Politics for more on Creigh and redistricting.

Last point: Quite apart from the substance of this editorial is obviously the mere fact of this editorial. It is difficult to over-estimate the value of a Washington Post editorial in NoVA in terms of free media and generating name recognition. Just yesterday, I got an email from a mostly non-political friend of mine, following the election mainly because of my interest in it, that read (in advance, what can I say, he's not a Moran fan):

The informal J--- L--- “eyeball poll” (lawn/roadside signs while driving around) is roughly McAuliffe 500, Moron 500, Deeds 0. I haven’t seen a single one.

Almost two years ago, I was interviewing Creigh for a story and he spoke about the difficulty of breaking through the noise in NoVA to reach voters. There was so much happening up there, he said, and people tended to focus their political energies North to Washington DC rather than South to Richmond, that it was just hard to be heard.

For today, at least, the best candidate for governor can be heard loud and clear up there.

Some interesting comments from PPP on turnout and the Democratic primary

Tom Jenson at the PPP blog offers this preview of their next poll:

Because we don't want to poll over Memorial Day weekend we put our second to last Virginia primary poll in the field last night, and we'll release it Friday or Saturday.

We decided to look at the race this week in a new way: how are the folks who pretty much always vote in primaries leaning versus the preferences of people who turned out last year for the Presidential primary but did not vote in one of the primaries between 2005 and 2007?

A pretty clear divide is emerging. Among the frequent primary voters Terry McAuliffe, Brian Moran, and Creigh Deeds are basically in a three way statistical tie based on the interviews conducted so far. But among the more casual primary voters who did not find Webb-Miller compelling enough to head to the polls but who are intending to come out this time McAuliffe has a substantial lead.

PPP's polling, at least, confirms the intuition of political observers here in the Commonwealth.

I can't help but wonder, however, whether that lead simply reflects McAuliffe's relatively large ad buys and the greater name recognition that flows from it. If these are the voters on which he is relying for a victory, good luck.

Another factor that has been on my mind lately is not only the overall turnout, but the distribution of the turnout. One factor here would be the presence of a local primary that attracts voters -- cvillelaw discusses this in an interesting comment over at Blue Commonwealth.

But it is also true that in a number of special and local elections up in NoVA, lately, it seems as if Democratic turnout, in particular, has been weak -- it is just a sense I get from the anecdotal reporting of unexpected electoral disasters and near-disasters that seem to have been occurring up there.

On the other hand, a recent firehouse Democratic primary in Charlottesville to elect candidates for the city council and sherrif drew nearly 1,700 people, a unexpectedly large throng for this small, albeit World class, city. And in those areas of the Commonwealth where unemployment runs high and the economy is in serious trouble, like Southside and areas of Southwest Virginia, where there is greater economic insecurity and uncertainty, in general, and where state government will have a greater direct impact on peoples' lives, if not their survival, voters may naturally turn out in greater numbers.

In Unprecedented Result, McAuliffe Both Wins and Loses Final Debate

The final Gubernatorial debate was tough to get a handle on, mostly because it was too short, poorly moderated and failed to permit the candidates to make cases for themselves or offer up thoughtful critiques of their opponents.

For the best coverage of what went on, and some pretty spot-on commentary of what it all meant, check out this post and this post at Blue Virginia.

For some awesome contemporaneous commentary, go check out Ben Tribbet’s tweets of the debate. I sat behind Ben at the debate, and his commentary – especially read in real-time, was devastating, illuminating and hilarious all at the same time. And, what can I say; the guy is a sharp dresser.

My first impression at the debate was that Terry McAuliffe won. In the hall, at least, Creigh seemed a little flat and Moran seemed, well, lost in the sense that with three weeks left to go in a campaign that he has been waging for three years, he still hasn’t seemed to find a consistent voice or message.

On a tactical level, Lowell’s analysis at Blue Virginia is spot on: “Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran needed a game changer in the last debate with just 3 weeks left to go, and they didn't get one. Thus, trailing in the polls, they lost.” And if Creigh and Moran lost, then McAuliffe won.

But during my drive home, I had some time to mull over the debate and the discreet moments and exchanges of which it consisted, and I came to a different conclusion: While I still thought McAuliffe won, he also lost. He got his hat handed to him by two experienced Virginia pols, he just didn’t know it.

First, let me cite the one winning McAuliffe moment that stood out as the debate’s highlight.

When it came time for his question, Creigh asked McAuliffe how he could promise so much to so many – building a gym, paying teachers mortgages, etc., when he knows budgets will be tight. The question was intended to put McAuliffe on the spot for pandering and over-promising. Before he was halfway done asking it, however, it was clear to everyone – even Creigh, I think -- that he’d made a mistake. McAuliffe thanked Creigh for the question, and took the opportunity to talk about his big ideas, about reaching for the stars. “Do you want me to get out of bed and say I’m gonna be 50th?” he said. “NO. You shoot for the moon. John Kennedy didn’t say we’re taking the rocket halfway to the moon, It goes all the way to the moon.”

Creigh is a baseball fan, so I’ll use a baseball analogy here: Creigh, you threw the guy a change-up, but he was just sitting back, waiting on it. The ensuing home run was a mere formality.

But the fact is that there were many more losing moments for McAuliffe in this debate, such as:

* Deeds’ zinger to McAuliffe on the disingenuousness of making a big deal of refusing contributions from Dominion while at the same time holding an event at the home of retired Dominion president and CEO Thomas Capps. The idea that Capps was simply an individual who happened to be a Dominion employee supporting him is ludicrous. And McAuliffe’s attempt at self-mocking humor to explain it away by saying “He didn’t even write a check” was crass.

* Moran’s comments about overturning the Marshall-Newman Amendment hurt McAuliffe in two ways. First, while Moran is obviously grandstanding the issue, he is right that if Virginia is to make progress on this critical issue, the next Governor needs to be willing to make it a priority to at least discuss it and begin the process of gathering public support behind the repeal of the Amendment. Moran’s admonition to McAuliffe that it won’t happen if you say “you don’t have the time,” even if that slightly distorts what McAuliffe actually said, is absolutely correct. McAuliffe seemed to argue that is was sufficient that he, himself, opposed discrimination. “I’m not for discrimination at all,” McAuliffe said, as if there are candidates out there running on a pro-discrimination platform.

Second, Moran’s answer came in response to a question about gay adoption, and for once, he seemed to be positive on an issue, analyzing with a forward-looking attitude rather than simply searching around for someone to hit. Not bad.

* The exchange between Moran and McAuliffe on payday lending, in my view, really hurt McAuliffe as well. I’m aware the McAuliffe camp seems to think this skirmish was a big victory for them, but they are wrong. First, the fact is that all three candidates agree that we should get rid of payday lending.

McAuliffe tries to lay the blame for payday lending at the feet of Creigh and Moran, somehow without scuffing up Mark Warner’s shoes. That’s not possible. The fact is that the 2002 legislation that brought this scourge upon our state happened despite the best intentions of people like Moran, Warner and Creigh. Call the three of them (and some of the other good legislators who voted in favor of allowing these miscreants into Virginia) naïve, or just plain dumb, but there is simply no way they were corrupt or wanted this to happen.

Yet, McAuliffe pretty much accused Moran of being in the pocket of the predatory lending industry when he makes a point of mentioning that Moran has received “tens of thousands of dollars” in donations from predatory lenders. It is true that Moran had received about $30K in donations, but given the timing of these donations and various other circumstances, the idea that they had any effect whatsoever on Moran’s legislative record with respect to payday lending is an absurd allegation.

To return to baseball, payday lending is a spitball, a disgusting, nasty pitch that doesn’t make anybody look good. McAuliffe would have been better off taking.

McAuliffe and his campaign have complained bitterly about the attacks from Moran in this campaign, incidentally using one of my favorite phrases straight out of the Department of Redundancy Department – “Negative Attacks.” A key component of this counter-attack by McAuliffe has been his contention that he promised he never would, and he never has, said a bad word about either of his opponents. Previously, that was a debatable proposition. Now that he has accused Moran of standing in the way of payday lending reform for $30K in donations over a 13-year period, it no longer is.

Terry McAuliffe is a negative attacker!

* The last reason McAuliffe lost this debate? His victory calculation still depends upon him soundly defeating Brian Moran in NoVA and Hampton Roads. If they split that vote, it allows Creigh to sneak in.

So, Moran’s lowlight in this debate that stuck the final dagger in his candidacy? Actually, he didn’t have one. The format, which barely gave the candidates time to speak, much less advance coherent arguments, and constant interrupting by the moderators kept Moran safe from his worst enemy, namely, himself.

And those are the reasons why Terry McAuliffe lost today’s debate.

McAuliffe record on predatory lending deserves more scrutiny

I don’t usually write about the hypocrisy of politicians because, to one extent or another, they are all hypocrites at times. It comes with the territory.

Sometimes, however, a politician himself will invite scrutiny, either by direct invitation or, more often, indirectly through the unwarranted criticism of an opponent that calls that opponent's ethics into question. Then, hypocrisy is not only fair game, it becomes an arguably relevant factor in evaluating a candidate. Brian Moran is a serial offender in this regard – for example, vaguely criticizing, without any proof of wrongdoing whatsoever, that Terry McAuliffe’s fund raising was somehow tainted, thus begging for the same standard to be applied to his own fundraising. The results have not been pretty for Moran.

This past week, however, it is Terry McAuliffe who invited the scrutiny of his own donors.

The contretemps are over what began as a minor shoving match between Deeds and McAuliffe on payday lending, but which has now had a few punches thrown. In brief, McAuliffe asserted that he is the only candidate who wants to ban payday lending in the Commonwealth. This is demonstrably false – Deeds has the same position -- and the Deeds camp understandably took umbrage. McAuliffe has also criticized both Deeds and Moran for their votes authorizing payday lending in the Commonwealth, and subsequent ineffectual attempts to repeal or restrict it. That’s fair. Creigh and Moran are big boys, and they have records they have to defend.

Creigh put out a radio spot gently chiding McAuliffe on the issue, including asserting that, among other things, he was “attacking Mark Warner and Tim Kaine’s records” on the issue of payday lending. It is a fair argument – it is impossible to attack Deeds and Moran for their votes over the years on payday lending without also criticizing Warner and Kaine, who supported the very same policies.

McAuliffe’s campaign responded with the following statement (h/t Blue Virginia):

Statement from the McAuliffe Campaign on Creigh Deeds's Negative Attack Ad

In response to the release of Creigh Deeds's negative attack ad yesterday, McAuliffe campaign spokeswoman Elisabeth Smith released the following statement:

"It's strange that Creigh Deeds is attacking Terry on this issue. The fact is that as members of the General Assembly all three of Terry's opponents allowed predatory lending to explode in Virginia and took thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the industry.

"It's an honest difference between the candidates. Terry wants to ban all predatory loans, and he's the only candidate who has pledged not to accept money from predatory lenders. He has also proposed a plan to replace predatory loans with a responsible alternative."

(The statement then included a “fact check” section not repeated here, but available at Blue Virginia.)

First, this is a complete overreaction to the gentle critique Deeds’ ad lays on McAuliffe. In any event, two statements drew my attention:

1. That Deeds “took thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the industry.”
2. McAuliffe is “the only candidate who has pledged not to accept money from predatory lenders.”

Here is the problem with those statements: both are technically true, but both are gross distortions of the records of each candidate when it comes to donations from the consumer lending industry such that, taken together, they constitute, at best, a unfair misrepresentation of the true situation, and at worst, a lie.

Here is what VPAP shows:

Deeds received two contributions from a single payday lender – Check ‘n Go – totaling $2,000.

That is it since 2002, when payday lending was authorized in Virginia..

In his current Gubernatorial run, Creigh has not received one red cent from consumer lending companies of any stripe.

To put it in context, over that time frame the consumer lending industry has donated nearly $2 million to Virginia candidates, PACs, etc.

So, I guess you can truthfully say that Creigh has “taken thousands” from the industry, but to what purpose, other than to distort the truth of the matter.

Consider the placement of the sentence regarding the ominous “thousands” in donations [at $2,000, just barely] from the “industry” [a single company actually. Six years ago] immediately following an assertion that Deeds, among others legislators, allowed the industry to explode, inferring a connection between the two. This is absurd on its face with respect to Deeds, given the timing and the amounts involved.

Then the kicker: McAuliffe would never do such a thing. He’s the only candidate that pledged to accept no money from payday lenders.

If you’re going to play this game, if you’re going to disingenuously suggest sleazy activity by an opponent, and if you’re going to contrast yourself to this false allegation by self-righteously offering up yourself as the exemplar of ethical behavior, then you had better be, as the saying goes, as pure as the driven snow.

Unfortunately for McAuliffe, that is not the case. It is not even close.

McAuliffe’s most recent finance report lists a $25,000 donation from the “industry.” It is from Catherine Reynolds, CEO of EduCap. In fact, Ms. Reynolds husband donated $25,000 to McAuliffe, as well, although that donation is not counted as coming from the company. Still, that is a $50K donation from EduCap.

EduCap is not a payday lender, but a private, non-profit student loan company. So, again, we can see McAuliffe’s assertion is technically true. He has not accepted money from a payday lender.

Still, EduCap’s record as a lender is not a good one. Indeed, the company has been accused of some of the classic sleazy business practices that are the mainstay of the repulsive payday lending industry.

According to CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, “The problem [with EduCap’s business] is, according to investigators who have looked at this, too often high interest charged, onerous terms are put upon the kids who, through aggressive marketing tactics, have been convinced to get these loans when they might be able to get better terms through other courses. Aggressive collection tactics are used, according to some of the students, if they miss a single payment.”

In addition, CBS has reported, “Watchdog Stephen Burd … says EduCap charges up to 18 percent interest - triple the government rates and as much or more than for-profit companies. He's heard from dozens student borrowers who complain about costs and aggressive collection tactics, who advise to avoid this company because it is predatory lending.”

Lastly, according to the Washington Post, in 2006 “the United States Student Association, the country's largest student organization, complained to the Federal Trade Commission, urging the agency to ‘take action to stop false and deceptive advertising practices’ by EduCap.” The FTC did not act, claiming it lacked jurisdiction.

I would also note here that EduCap has been the subject of or tangentially related to several other controversies, including an IRS investigation into its tax-exempt status, but the idea here is not to tar Terry McAuliffe with all the possible bad acts of his contributors, which is why I stuck to EduCap’s record as a lender – the issue at hand.

Catherine Reynolds is known around D.C. for, among other things, her large charitable and political donations. Does she do it from a charitable heart, or does she expect something in return, or both? Well, here's a quote to help you decide whether you're comfortable with Ms. Reynolds putting fifty large into our Governor’s race:

“Well, and we also believe that the people that give the largest donations should sit in the front row.”
-Catherine Reynolds

But the question really is, given the standard the McAuliffe campaign itself deems approrpiate, if $2,000 of donations to Creigh six years ago from a payday lender is worthy of note, what about $50,000 of donations six weeks ago from a consumer lender that has, at best, a spotty record?

Governor's Race Campaign Contribution Report Card - Predatory Lenders

Most people of reasonable intelligence and minimal ethical standards can agree that payday lending and its cousin, car title lending, are immoral, unethical, destructive and unfair. Interest rates that can be 350% or higher (once all fees are calculated) are the norm, and while a small minority of people can use this type of expensive credit responsibly, the vast majority of people who enter this system -- by definition among the weakest of our community financially -- find themselves trapped in a situation from which there is no exit.

So, how can any responsible legislator or public servant support predatory lending? On the surface, they accept the arguments of the industry that they are providing a needed service at a fair price -- one of those arguments that can sound logical and is maybe 5% true, perhaps just enough to make it with a straight face, but which actual experience shows is 95% hooey.

Nor is this a partisan issue. Much to my disappointment, many Democrats, such as Dick Saslaw, have been good friends to this despicable industry over the years. On a macro level, of course, the answer is simple: Money. It's not a case of illegal quids chasing willing quos. Rather, since 2002, when predatory lending was first permitted in Virginia in a misguided attempt to regulate and control the industry, consumer lenders have dumped nearly $2 million into Virginia's political coffers. That's about $286,000 per year -- not exactly chump change.

All the Democratic candidates for Governor have called for the banning of predatory lending in the state. Bob McDonnell has been a supporter of it, and although as attorney general he did pursue individual predatory lenders who did not follow the rules, he did not aggressively try to ferret them out. Even so, the issue is not predatory lenders who flunked out of scam school and can't follow the law; the issue is the law itself that, not to put too fine a point on it, legalizes loansharking.

This industry does not so much want to be coddled as it just wants to be left alone while it screws the working poor, and it is willing to pay our leaders to do nothing.

So, I thought I see how all four candidates fare with respect to taking money from the predatory lending industry ("lending companies" or "consumer credit" in the anodyne language of VPAP) , both in connection with their Gubernatorial campaigns and over the course of their political careers since 2002, and what if anything it says about the candidates.

Creigh Deeds:

Total contributions since 2002: $6,750
Contributions accepted as candidate for Governor: $0
Contributions accepted as candidate for AG: $3,000
GRADE: A-. As AG, you have to prosecute predatory lenders, and you just should not take a cent from them -- no ifs, ands or buts. That said, these are pretty paltry amounts, and it is clear the industry has never seen you as a friend of theirs, but still, no "A" for you, Creigh.

Bob McDonnell:

Total contributions since 2002: $76,014
Contributions accepted as a candidate for Governor: $16,700
Contributions received in connection with run for AG: $55,664
GRADE: D. I'm only mildly bothered by the $16,700, since it will be a drop in the bucket when all is said and done in this election. But $56K was a lot to take in the run for AG (See discussion on Deeds above). That said, in my heart I do not think Bob McDonnell is corrupt, so he doesn't get an "F". Nor do I think the contributions to him are even designed to earn his favor -- they are way too small. Rather, these contributions reflect the fact that predatory lenders already know McDonnell has their back and they think it would be better for their businesses to see him elected. These contributions, therefore, are not only appropriate, I encourage them. This is what our political system is all about -- supporting the candidate you like best.

That makes Bob McDonnell honest, but morally impaired. To tell the truth, I'd feel better if he were simply corrupt.

Brian Moran:

Total contributions since 2002: $29,750
Contributions accepted as a candidate for Governor: $250
GRADE: B-. Moran has taken only $250 in his run for Governor, and $30K over 7 or 8 years of fundraising -- not a huge amount. That said, of that $29,750 raised over his career from this industry, $25,000 of it has been donated over the past 3 years, and $15,000 of that from a single company -- LoanMax, of Alpharetta, GA. While that money was donated to Moran for Delegate or to Moran's leadership PAC, it obviously was to help with the Gubernatorial run. (In comparison, Creigh took in one $500 donation from American General Corp. for his Senate campaign over the same period). As with McDonnell, I don't believe Moran is being corrupted here, but the amounts are worthy of notice, and knock a few notches off his grade.

Terry McAuliffe:

VPAP records show a $25,000 contribution from Catherine Reynolds classified as coming from the consumer lending industry (her husband separately donated $25,000 to McAuliffe's campaign). Reynolds runs EduCap. While these donations might carry other baggage with them, they don't count as contributions from predatory lenders.
GRADE: INCOMPLETE. He has taken no money from predatory lenders, so McAuliffe avoids a bad grade, but given the fact that he has only been raising money for six months and has no history in Virgina politics, he is tough to evaluate.