I've Left the Virginia Democratic Party...

Cross-Posted at DailyKOS and the HokieGuru blog

And not because I don't have progressive views about the future... the Virginia Democratic Party has left me.

The Virginia Democratic Party has been "leaderless" for almost two years. We've had hit rock bottom. Let's talk about some of the things that need to be fixed for me to come back into the fold (e.g out of Independent status)... let's start at the top:

1. Barack Obama - I love you, Mr. President, but no one knows what you stand for. You've been AWOL in the federal budget fight, you accept whatever cuts the House Republicans want, and we are now in a third war (and we are borrowing from China to finance those operations). I don't see you standing up for the party members, either... I see you talking in generalities, but there is no positive message from you on how your policies (or lack there of) are going to make the nation better off.
   
2. Tim Kaine - Dude, please quit playing drama queen and get off your "fence" about running for Senate. You have ruined the chance that other candidates (much better candidates, I might add) will run for the federal political office that impacts every Virginian's life. After your tenure and the DNC (and the substantial electoral losses... pretty much wiping out our 2006 and 2008 House and Senate gains), why anyone would want you to run for Senate is beyond me. It's kind of like banging your head against the wall repeatedly and stopping because it feels so good (e.g. insanity). Please do us all a favor and take the ambassador position in Madrid.
3. Jim Webb - Jim, I understand why you are leaving (Senate Dems are going to be in the minority in 2012). However, this is a time when we need your leadership in the Senate. We can no longer endure draconian budget cuts and during your last few weeks, we need you to stop caving... we also need you to talk some sense into Tim Kaine.
   
4. Jim Moran - You have lost your only chance to be a House committee chairmen... won't ever happen for you... as a committee chair, you would have the authority to send resources to Alexandria and Arlington, part of the economic power engine in the State of Virginia. It's time for you to retire. We need new blood in your seat... someone that is in touch with the district and it's needs... someone that has a chance to lead. You've been a back bencher for years and it's time for you to end that charade.
   
5. Creigh Deeds - You did nothing to reach out to younger voters (that's why Barack Obama won... reaching out in Northern Virginia would have been a good idea). The downslide in the Virginia Democratic Party really began with you, man. Your 2009 Virginia Governor campaign was the worst I have ever seen in politics. It might have brought the Virginia Democratic Party to pre-1993 levels.
6. Brian Moran - Dude, seriously, where do I start? I have no idea how you are the Chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia. Hello, you run for Governor, you can't even win your own home precinct, and you get this important leadership role? WTF. Really? Dude, seriously... what are you doing to build the Democratic Party in Virginia? I see no strategic message or positive message for the future originating from your office... you need to lead the efforts in this area... as a party, we can't say, don't vote for the other party because they suck... we have to say this is why our polices are going to make your life better... a strong positive message about the future is what we need. Who is in charge of strategic communication, anyway? It is bad enough that you support a proprietary educational industry that eats at the tax payer trough.
   
7. Dick Saslaw - Dude, you are my Senator... I've voted for you a couple times, but I'm not donating just because you say Cooch sucks. You can only play the firewall role so long. Where is your positive vision for the future? How are you going to make life better for Virginia (and more specifically, Alexandria) residents? I see nothing coming out of the Virginia Senate "leadership."

You notice here that I've consistently talked (several times above) about a positive message for the future... this is what people respond to... how do you plan to make Virginian lives better? What can we do better than Republicans? This is a conservative state... not gonna get away with trashing the other party... must make a case as to why we are better. How will people benefit from our policies? None of those seven people above are doing that. I've never seen a party so lost in the wilderness.

And that's why I'm now an Independent voter and have left the Virginia Democratic Party. I may be back in the fold in November 2012... but you have to win me back... with a positive message about the future.

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.”

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.

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.

Finally, the MSM does some real digging and gets it right!

Hilarious.

Click on the main video (interview with Creigh) on the right side of the screen. You can watch the interview (always edifying listening to Creigh) or just forward to about the 3:15 mark for a good laugh.

http://www.wtvr.com/

Just awesome.

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.

Moran says McAuliffe was "slow" in supporting Obama

Here is a line of attack against Terry McAuliffe I have seen before -- that Terry did not support Barack Obama fast enough or enthusiastically enough. But since I have only seen this attack advanced on some blogs who have been, in my view, a bit too quick to find fault with him, I thought it a bit silly. Would any voter really care?

But, apprently, Brian Moran hits McAuliffe on the topic in Adam Nagourney's upcoming article in the New York Times Magazine, which states:

..[T]here are whispers of lingering resentment among some Obama supporters that he didn't stop fighting when the battle was obviously over; Moran told me that he has heard such complaints from "numerous people" and has no doubt it will hurt McAuliffe in the primary. "There was a time when Democrats needed to come together behind our candidate, and he was very slow in doing that," Moran says.

H/T - HuffPo

Further, according to HuffPo, Nagourney reports that aides to Obama were skeptical enough of McAuliffe's Virginia appeal that they polled how he stood among Commonwealth voters before sending him out as a surrogate during the election.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't know who Brian Moran supported during the primary -- I supported Hillary Clinton -- but I utterly reject this idea that how quickly Hillarly supporters came around to Obama has any meaning whatsoever in the Gubernatorial election, except to the extent that someone became a PUMA and actively opposed Obama.

Brian Moran's Political Malpractice

I'll stipulate that, for a politician, navigating certain issues can be challenging, and gay marriage is one of those issues.

I don't think it is a difficult moral or ethical issue -- laws banning gay marriage are a form of discrimination and bigotry, pure and simple. But the fact is that many well-meaning and decent people feel differently for a variety of reasons I need not go into here, and therein lies the minefield for politicians. Often, they can be out in front of their constituents on social issues, but not quite ready to challenge the attitudes of their constituents with their votes.

A Progressive, populist Democrat representing wide swaths of rural Virginia, this navigation has been as tough for Creigh as for any politician in the state. His votes in favor of putting the Marshall-Newmann amendment on the ballot in 2005 and 2006, but his campaigning and voting against that very same amendment once it was placed on the ballot, encapsulates this inner conflict. He has taken his lumps over it, and come out a better, more tolerant person. I've come around to a better understanding of this issue, Creigh said during the debate at VT the other night, perhaps "more slowly that others."

Yet, bizarrely, hoping to gain political advantage, Brian Moran attacked Creigh Deeds about this issue at Wednesday night's debate, saying that notwithstanding his growth on the issue, Creigh would have to be "held accountable" for his vote on the Marshall-Newmann amendment. Creigh responded by intimating that Brian's voting record on gay marriage may not be so pristine, either.

Then tonight, Rosalind Helderman at the Washington Post (who by the way has been doing an outstanding job since joining the Virginia desk a few weeks ago) looked back at Moran's votes on an anti-gay marriage bill from 2004. she found Moran skipped one vote on the bill (rather than voting against it), voted in favor of it one time, and voted against it one time. Jesse Ferguson, Brian Moran's communications director, lamely explained that his man's vote must have been recorded incorrectly, since it does not reflect the way he felt at the time.

Except at the time, Brian Moran explained the missed vote to a reporter at the Washington Times, saying, "Those of us that are uncomfortable with the state recognizing a gay marriage would have difficulty not supporting the resolution. But the fact is it's premature. It was a loaded resolution, and we really need to spend more time on the issues that are before us."

"Those of us that are uncomfortable with the state recognizing a gay marriage..."

As my friend Drew at DemBones says every so often, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

What was Brian Moran thinking when he attacked Creigh on this issue?

In fact, that is the wrong question to ask at this point. There are many things like this in the Moran record, such as: Moran's vote for an unconstitutional restriction on abortion in 2003, even though his website claims he has never supported an unconstitutional restriction on choice; His advocacy of clean coal technology during an interview in Southwest Virginia; His vote in favor of the Wise coal plant even as he asserted a moral superiority ground in his opposition to the Surry one; his early criticism of Terry McAuliffe's out-of-state fundraisisng, even though Moran had done the same thing; and now, a checkered record on gay marriage (not to mention the bullshit excuse tossed by his communications director to try to bamboozle a reporter) even as he has the gall to tell another candidate he will be "held accountable" for his record.

In each of these cases, Moran supporters have either attacked the messenger seeking to bring his record to light or sought to minimize the damage through excuse-making -- it was only one vote, it was a long time ago, nobody cares anymore, blah, blah, blah.

At what point are there enough of these incidents that a pattern emerges, one that tells us that Brian Moran is simply not ready and not qualified to be the Democratic Party nominee for Governor?

Sabato's "Ten Keys" To The Governor's Mansion Suggests Deeds, McAuliffe Have Best Shot To Beat McDonnell

UPDATE: Jim Moran's office got in touch to say the Congressman is not under investigation and denies any wrongdoing with respect to PMA. I have changed the wording of the post below with respect to Rep. Moran to more clearly reflect the publicly-reported status of this matter.

Despite some substantive differences among the three Democratic candidates for Governor, virtually every Democrat is certain that either Creigh, Terry McAuliffe or Brian Moran would be a far superior choice to Bob McDonnell, come November.

Given this, one huge factor Democratic primary voters should have on their minds in choosing a Gubernatorial candidate is which one has the best shot of winning in November.

Such a determination now necessarily involves a great deal of speculation, but that doesn’t mean the determination should not be made. Indeed, at one time or another, each candidate or their supporters have argued why they have the best chance to beat McDonnell, each following a different model of a recent Democratic statewide victory. Moran claims he will be able to run up the total in NoVA and Hampton Roads needed to beat McDonnell (Webb). Creigh claims he will have stronger appeal to the Independents and moderate Republicans a Democrat needs to win statewide in the Commonwealth (Warner). Terry McAuliffe claims he will have the biggest bankroll, and his outsider status and message of change will bring new voters into the process (Obama).

Depending upon which candidate you support, each of these arguments also has a counter-argument of why they are flawed.

There is also the problem of an uncertain political environment. 2008 was, to say the least, an upheaval election. The sheer numbers of people who went to the polls, in Virginia and nationwide, was mind-boggling. Will this level of interest be sustained without the drama of an Obama/Clinton battle, or without the historical potential of electing the first African-American president, or without the palatable anger at the Bush administration and the overwhelming feeling that we were veering badly off-course in the United States?

To try to get a more objective set of criteria with which to evaluate the prospects of each Democratic candidate, I went back to a 2002 article by UVA Professor Larry Sabato in which he discusses the overarching factors that provided “ten keys to the Governor’s mansion” from 1969 to 2001. (Sabato, Larry, “A Democratic Revival in Virginia,” The Virginia News Letter, February, 2002).

As Sabato dismantled the nine elections he looked at, he scored each of his defined criteria as either favoring the Democrat, the Republican or as Neutral. Each criteria counted equally, and Sabato simply counted up his results. In all nine elections, whichever candidate had an advantage in the number of “ten keys” which mitigated to his benefit, he won the election. I applied the ‘Ten keys” to 2005, and it easily “predicted” a Kaine victory.

Obviously, in assigning a winner to each criteria, there is a fair amount of subjectivity and ample room for debate. That said, applying Sabato's "ten keys" leaves either Creigh or McAuliffe with a claim to having the best chance to beat McDonnell, and Moran as presenting the greatest risk of losing.

Here, then, are the “ten keys” and, based on my assessment, what they predict for how each Democrat might fare in the general election (obviously, these circumstances can change between now and election day):

1. The economy, as measured by changes in per capita income and the unemployment rate in the twelve months prior to Election Day.
Advantage to the R.

2. Campaign Organization and Technology
Neutral. Potential edge to D if Mcauliffe is nominee.

3. Candidate Personality and Appeal
Neutral. All four candidates are likable enough people.

4. Retrospective Judgment on Previous Governor
Advantage to the D.

5. Presidential Popularity as measured by public opinion poll ratings for the six months prior to election day.
Advantage to the D.

6. Scandal.
Neutral, with the following proviso: Scandal, by its nature, is unpredictable, but it bears mentioning that Brian Moran’s big brother Jim has been repeatedly mentioned in the press in connection with the PMA scandal as a recipient of PMA donations and as a political ally of Rep. James Murtha, Appropriations Committee Chairman. If that develops further, it would swing this category solidly to “Advantage to the R,” but I would note that Jim Moran's office denies he is under investigation or that he has done anything wrong.

7. Party Unity.
Neutral. While Democrats obviously have a divisive primary, there is more serious civil war in the GOP ranks. Still, if Democrats are unable to rally around the primary winner, the short-term advantage for this key will go to the R.

8. Campaign Money.
Neutral. This will be a closely watched race with national implications. Money will not be a problem for either candidate. Still, if McAuliffe is the nominee, it may turn “Advantage to the D.”

9. Prior Office Experience of Candidates (where statewide elective office is given more weight that a district or local office).
Neutral if Creigh is the Democratic nominee. Advantage to the R if Moran or McAuliffe is the nominee.

10. Special Issues and Dominant Circumstance.
Impossible to determine at this point in time.

So, the result for the nine categories we were able to evaluate is as follows (assuming Democrats come together over our nominee):

* McDonnell v. Creigh: D (+1)
* McDonnell v. McAuliffe: N (provisionally D+2 based on campaign organization and technology and potential fundraising ability)
* McDonnell v. Moran: N (provisionally R+1 based on scandal risk associated with Jim Moran)

Why the Moran campaign alienates so many

Over at Raising Moran, eileen has a post up entitled "More Women Bloggers 4 Brian Moran." In it, she proudly announces, among other things, "Howling Latina lets her no-holds-bar style loose in support of Brian Moran too! Gotta love it," linking to a post that states the following:

First, a message to the state senator from Bath County via the howler. She wants you to quit filling her inbox with campaign drivel and span; nothing you can ever say will convince her to campaign or vote for you. She's just not that into you; maybe it's all those anti-drug laws you tout on your Web site.

Besides, you are a loser. You lost your campaign for lieutenant governor and you lost your campaign for attorney general. Don't you think you should first prove you can win statewide before you ask for a promotion?? Just asking...

Is this really the rhetoric that Brian Moran's campaign wants to be touting? Creigh Deeds is a loser? It is nonsense like this that simply turns so many people off to the Moran candidacy.

And just to be clear, the problem here is not Howling Latina's opinion (although see comments, below). The question is whether, by approvingly citing this post on a semi-official campaign site, the Moran campaign is endorsing language like this.

Also, I ask, do you really "gotta love it" when someone calls a dedicated and loyal Democrat who has served the people of Virginia and fought for Progressive causes for more than 20 years a "loser"? Exactly who is persuaded by this dreck?

No, I don't love it.

Howling Latina's comments, besides being nasty to no apparent purpose, simply have no factual basis. Anyone with a passing familiarity with Virginia history would know that Creigh's "loss" to McDonnell in 2005 by 300 votes out of 1.7 million cast is hardly the performance of a "loser." In fact, it was the best performance by a Democrat running for Attorney General since Mary Sue Terry in 1989.

As for that election that Creigh lost for Lt. Governor, well, I'm relatively new to Virginia politics, so I readily admit that perhaps Creigh ran for this office at some point in the past and I'm unaware of it.

But my favorite part of the post is this gem:

Don't you [Creigh] think you should first prove you can win statewide before you ask for a promotion?? Just asking...

Uh, okay. Well, what's good for the goose... So, I'm "just asking" the same question of Brian Moran.

Analysis: Why Moran's "Fighter" Theme Lacks Punch

I’m not in the predicton game, so I don’t know whether Brian Moran will win the Democratic primary in June, but if he does prevail it will be in spite of, not because of, the campaign he has run.

Consider the central theme of Brian Moran’s campaign – “We Need a Fighter” -- and how this rhetoric actually works against the campaign he has run. There have been at least three basic problems with the way in which the Moran campaign and its supporters have framed and pursued this strategy.

The first problem is that, despite his tough words, it is not exactly clear from his record how much of a fighter Brian Moran actually is. It is true he argued with Republicans for many years in the House of Delegates, and it is true that he has staked out consistently liberal positions in a state and in a legislature in which liberals were not always the most popular of characters. We can agree that he was a fighter in the sense that he was a persistent advocate for his positions.

Of course, “We need a debater” isn’t much of a rallying cry, either.

When I think of a fighter, I think of someone with skin in the game. Virginia may have been conservative, but Brian Moran’s district was always reliably liberal. As I said, he has been a passionate advocate – fair enough -- but I’m a bit unclear on where the risk in that advocacy lay for him.

That risk is a necessary element of the “fighter” argument the Moran camp is making, because it is implicit in the argument that Brian Moran possesses political courage and fortitude so worthy of admiration that it is enough to elevate him to the highest office in the Commonwealth. If there a true record of political courage in Brian Moran’s background – one in which he really put something personal at risk, where he profoundly disagreed with the majority of his constituents, or a vote that might have risked his seat, or where he had to go back to Alexandria and challenge his district to follow his lead, his campaign has not put that record forth.

Which leads to the second problem, namely, that in the conduct of his campaign, neither Brian Moran nor his supporters have demonstrated they are fighters. They have been whiners, complaining about the unfairness of every criticism. They have been bullies, letting loose attack dogs to hurl untrue accusations against bloggers who endorsed an opponent, leaking private e-mails or knowingly putting people’s livelihoods in danger. And they have pitched fits -- I have been called nuts, crazy, insane or some variation thereof several times by a prominent blogosphere supporter of Brian Moran’s.

At the same time, questions have been raised – legitimate question, in my view, about Brian Moran’s record on choice, about campaign contributions from businesses who may be currying favor with his brother, about the inconsistency between Brian Moran’s position on the Surry and the Wise coal plants, about the conduct of his campaign and his operatives and about the behavior of volunteers attached to the campaign. Not a single question has been forthrightly answered.

The evening of the dueling blogger dinners, for example, Creigh Deeds subjected himself to several hours of on-the-record questioning by one blogger, Lowell Feld, who supported an opponent, and by another blogger, Ben Tribbet, is equally tough on everybody. Brian Moran, meanwhile, had a dinner to which, for the most part, only bloggers who supported him were permitted to attend. And even with that, much of it was off the record.

The third problem is that the construction of the argument itself suggests that Brian Moran will be a Governor who fights, but doesn’t deliver. In government, it is a role in which Brian Moran likely feels comfortable, not for lack of effort or desire, but because he has spent his entire legislative life in the minority party.

Conditioned as he is by life in the House of Delegates, I fear that Brian Moran thinks fighting is the goal. It isn’t. Above all else, citizens want their chief executive to get things done, not merely fight. Governing effectively is the goal.

Sure, I want a Governor who will fight and hang tough, but I also want a Governor who is comfortable enough and skillful enough at the art of governing to be able to sit at a table with his political opponents when it is called for and cut a deal from a position of strength. And, when the situation calls for it, walk away from that table, as well.

In this regard, Brian Moran has been one-dimensional. He has asserted that he will be a fighter – one can accept that or not – but he has not even attempted to explain how he will be a Governor, or why he is the right person for that part of the job.

I may not agree with the views of 49 percent of my fellow citizens in the Commonwealth, but once this election is over, they will still be my fellow citizens, and the fact is that my welfare is wrapped up in theirs.

Taken together, I wonder whether this dissonance between rhetoric and record, between assertion and action, is the reason why, between Feb. 3 and March 30, Brian Moran’s favorable rating has stayed at 34, while his unfavorable has risen from 11 to 15.

As Chico Marx once said, “Who are you going to believe, me or your eyes?”

Who Knows, Maybe 80% of Defense Contractors Just Oppose the Surry Plant?

All three candidates have faced criticism over fundraising in this primary campaign.

Criticism over Terry McAuliffe’s fundraising from his Wall Street and Hollywood pals, and Brian Moran’s singular appeal to defense and homeland security contractors, led to several questions and barbs at today’s debate.

At one point, naturally enough, Andrea Mitchell asked whether Virginia needs campaign finance limits like the Federal government. It’s a Beltway thing.

Not that anyone should care what I think one way or another about this, but, FWIW, I think the system we have in Virginia is pretty good.

First, I strongly oppose campaign contribution limits in general. It’s not that I don’t appreciate the corrupting nature of money in politics in general, because I do. But I believe that the ability to donate money to a political campaign is a matter of free speech and personal choice that government ought to stay out of. As much as it pains me to agree with George Will about anything, McCain-Feingold is a law with the best of intentions, and the worst of solutions.

Do some people donate to candidates for shady reasons? Sure they do, but the sunshine of disclosure is the best cure for that particular problem. Indeed, the current debate we are having in this primary is a perfect example.

Maybe you think that Brian Moran is getting all those defense industry donations because of his powerful brother, Jim Moran, and his position on, and close relationship with John Murtha, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Maybe you agree with Terry McAuliffe that the U.S. Attorney ought to look into it.

Or perhaps you are convinced Brian Moran is receiving the preponderance of donations from this industry because, for some strange reason, the defense and homeland security industries, more than any other, oppose the construction of the Surry coal fired plant. (Hey, could be!)

Actually, I’m not really bothered by, but I am a little suspicious of, the reason behind the defense and homeland security largess that is bestowed upon Brian Moran. I don’t think for a moment that there is any quid-pro-quo involved with it or that Brian Moran is party to any chicanery, but I am undecided on the question of whether he the knowing, unwitting beneficiary of some chicanery.

As for Terry McAuliffe, I’m similarly not bothered by his huge out of state donations. “I have friends,” McAuliffe says. I say, G-d bless him, I should have some friends like that.

The point is that the Virginia system both allows and compels us to ask these questions. And to come up with our own answers. Furthermore, these are debates worth having – they go directly to the quality, integrity and ability of our political leadership.

But the guy whose fund raising issues have most perturbed me throughout this primary is Creigh Deeds. While he had a great first quarter, raising money in small donations from people all around Virginia, he’s still not doing enough of it. So, if you’re among the 2 or 3 people to have read this far in the post, drop the guy a few sheckels, will ya?


I’ve got an ActBlue Page

Or

Go to Creigh’s Website

Yet another reason it looks bleak for Brian Moran

NLS has a very interesting look at the state of the Gubernatorial race. I just don't know enough to comment on a lot of it, and some of it is just speculation that no one can evaluate. The bottom line -- that Terry McAuliffe, the guy with the most money by far, is clearly the best positioned, is fairly conventional and hard to argue with.

But the following point caught my attention:

Creigh's only real chance to win is with low NoVA turnout, and Brian's only road the nomination is with high NoVA turnout and winning a huge share of that vote.

Ben doesn't define low NoVA turnout, but elsewhere he states, with respect to high NoVA turnout:

Brian needs Northern Virginia to be over 40% of the vote in this primary[.]

So, will NoVA be 40% of the vote?

In part, it depends how one defines NoVA, obviously, I thought for voting purposes, the following jurisdictions were fair to include in NoVA:

Arlington Co.
Fairfax Co.
Loudoun Co.
Stafford Co.
Prince William Co.
Alexandria City
Falls Church City
Fairfax City
Manassas City
Manassas Park City

I then looked at Democratic voter participation in these five jurisdictions as a percentage of total statewide Democratic voters in the following five elections:

2008 General (Democratic voters for President only)
2008 Presidential Primary
2006 Senatorial Primary
2005 General (Democratic voters for Governor only)
2005 LG Primary

In only one of those elections did the percentage of Democratic voters in NoVA, as I defined it, exceed 40% of the total Democratic voters -- the threshold Ben says Moran needs. And in the other four elections, the percentages were significantly below 40% -- 33.6%; 31%; 31%; 33.6%. I'm not going to tell you which one was over 40%, but if you think about it, it can be divined.

Perhaps Ben is defining NoVA differently than me, including a few of the exurban counties to the South in calculating his 40% threshold for Moran. If so, then fine. I suppose I could have asked him, but that would be too easy and less fun.

But I think I'm using a pretty reasonable definition of NoVA. If Ben is right that Brian Moran needs this vote to constitute 40% of the total before he even gets to the percentage Ben said he needs to win to prevail in the election (which at this point seems utterly impossible for him to reach), I don't see where Moran stands a chance in this election. I would argue that NoVA, as I defined it, is more likely to be toward the low to mid 30s as a percentage of the total primary vote, given the ubiquitous presence of three candidates -- Creigh, Jody Wagner and Jon Bowerbank -- from other areas of the Commonwealth.

Shad Planking Report: Creigh Wins The Sign War! *

* At least on the bumper of my car, which was in the parking lot.




At the Shad Planking, however, I'd have to give it to Terry McAuliffe (please see photos on every other blog).

Anyway, here are a few quick observations from my first Shad:

1. I was prepared for a lot of signs, but the number of McAuliffe signs was amazing. I hope it helps him, because a McAuliffe staffer, after several beers, handed me the following updated Income Statement for the campaign:

RECEIPTS - 1Q09
Money raised $4,500,000
Cash on Hand as of 3/31 $2,300,000

EXPENSES
74 Gazillion Signs $8,547,963
Airplane w/sign $ 3,000

CURRENT DEFICIT: ($6,250,963)

2. Several people mentioned to me that Creigh made a "mistake" by not attending. They were caught in the heat of the moment, and I could not disagree more. There was not a single undecided voter anywhere near the Shad Planking (unless, of course, teacherken attended), unlike the many voters Creigh met with today in southwest Virginia.

3. I felt a little sad for Brian Moran. His campaign seems to be losing steam and desire. It was one thing for Creigh not to have a presence at the Shad -- after all, he wasn't there. But, honestly, Brian Moran didn't seem to have one either, and he was there. He didn't bother with the sign war, and his supporters seemed neither out in force nor pumped up for their man, IMHO.

4. I saw George Allen, and boy, was I glad, The former Senator and I are about as far apart as two people could be on the political and ideological spectrum, but just knowing there was another person there who could not eat the chametz they were serving made me fell not so alone on this penultimate day of Passover.

5. For a guy whose ideology, particularly when it comes to social issues, is just slightly to the right of Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, Bob McDonnell is pretty darn personable. This has me very concerned.

6. On the other hand, wherever McDonnell went at the Shad, he was followed by a legion of supporters holding signs bearing his name on sticks about eight feet in the air, and ready to shout down any random Democrat who might challenge their guy. Around this cordon was a gaggle of preppie looking guys all smoking large cigars, so that their cheap odor followed this strange procession wherever it wen, proving that McDonnell's campaign really does stink.

7. Here is a shot of Jim Gilmore waiting to use a port-0-john. Still a putz.



8. Had a brief chat with Terry McAuliffe. I'll say this for him: when he is talking to you, he is talking to you. I really felt like he was engaged in a one-on-one conversation with me. Among other things, I asked him about closing the gun show loophole, and his response was along the lines of "We have enough laws. We need to enforce them better," but he listened to my question, and gave a thoughtful answer, albeit one I don't agree with. Beyond that, I watched him deal with a WP reporter and with a guy in the crowd who insited on interrupting his time with the reporter, and he handled both very smoothly.

9. Chatted briefly with Steve Shannon. I know we are all caught up in the Gubernatorial primary, but we have a great candidate running for Attorney General, and Democrats seem poised to take this office for the first time in 20 years.

10. Picture of Terry McAuliffe giving his speech:

Huge News: Creigh has $1.2 Million cash on hand

Looks like Brian Moran was correct: It's a two-man race after all!

Seriously, this is great news!. Just got the following letter in my inbox:

Alan --

I wanted you to be the first to know that we proved the pundits wrong.
 
I am excited to announce that I was able to raise more money in 44 days than the previous 6 months -- and now my campaign has $1.2 million cash-on-hand.
 
[snip]

Some people said that it was foolish of me to give up 46 days of campaign fundraising in order to stay and fight for you in the Virginia Senate.  They said that I had no shot of keeping up with my opponents.

But as we've said all along, we are on track to have the resources we need to let every Democratic primary voter know I'm the one candidate who's best prepared to continue the legacy of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine.
 
[snip]

My opponents had twice as much time to fundraise.  Brian Moran even resigned his seat so he could raise money full-time for his campaign, but it didn't pay off.  I now have 41 percent more cash on-hand than Brian.

I'm also so proud that because of our growing support statewide, 97 percent of our contributions came from Virginians like you.
 
But to take on Terry McAuliffe and win the nomination on June 9th, we need to keep building on our success. Contribute today.

It means so much to me to have your support.

Thank you,

Creigh Deeds

This is huge news. Obviously, Creigh is behind McAuliffe, but the fact that he is ahead of Moran with respect to cash on hand as of today crates an entirely new dynamic on this race.

Could it be time for Brian Moran to drop out and throw his support to Creigh?

Republicans explain why Creigh scares them the most, Moran the least

Blue Virginia has a post up knocking down the idiotic idea that Creigh may be dropping out of the race. Lowell traced the story back to a story at Bearing Drift that read as follows:

Last night at their Richmond office kick off, Jody Wagner staffers told Bearing Drift that Creigh Deeds was withdrawing from the Democratic race for Governor. Coming from the front runner for the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor that’s a big blow for Deeds who is currently polling third in the race behind Brian Moran and Terry McAulliffe.

There is no truth to it whatsoever. Why on Earth would Creigh drop out right before five debates that will arguably decide the race? Obviously, there is no reason. The real mystery here is why "staffers" (note, not just one person without a clue) for Jody Wagner would seek to spread such an obviously false story.

But as I followed Lowell's links to read the source material for myself, what really caught my attention were the comments to the Brearing Drift post from Republican readers. Recently, I saw an article somewhere that reported on the fears of Republican operatives of a McAuliffe candidacy in the Fall. Being professionals, their reason was his fundraising prowess. Not a single operative said he or she feared Brian Moran. Several feared Creigh because of his ability to appeal to independents, moderates and disaffected Republicans.

The comments to this story at Bearing Drift seem to bear that out.

Here are the comments on point:

This [Deeds dropping out] would be great for us [Republicans], as Deeds is the only Democrat that could pull significant Republican voters away from McDonnell. Moran and McAuliffe are both way too far to the left.

* * * * * * *

In a perfect GOP world Creigh, Brian and Terry would fight tooth and nails for the nomination. In the process slinging mud at each other. They would all make it to the primary. Brian would win. Their respective supporters would stay divided and Bob would become the 71st Gov of the Commonwealth.

* * * * * * *

Look... I REALLY dislike Bob McDonnell. I sure don’t want to vote for him.
However, Brian Moran is a far lefty. He is also a big time enviornmentalist. I know that plays well with you and Eileen but, to me that is too much to ignore and vote for the guy. Understandably, he’s a favorite in the left of center crowd and Sierra Club democrats.
Terry McAwful has the money. That’s his advantage. His DNC partisanship coupled with his “carpet bagger” status however, will be enough to energize Republicans that are soft on McDonnell. They’ll hold their noses and vote for Bob “one gun a month” McDonnell. Some but, not all.

[snip]

You guys can try to paint Moran as conservative all you want. It will be just too damn easy to destroy that facade with Moran’s record and the enviornmentalist agenda he has. What you like about Moran, really is a turn off to us. I couldn’t vote for him.
You have disaffected people that really are upset with McDonnell. I would suggest you’d listen but, the Moran colored glasses you’re wearing won’t let you see that. Or will you be objective and see it for what it really is?

Joel McDonald, of VBDems, who recently published a call for Creigh to leave the race and throw his support to Brian Moran across the Progressive Blogoshere, posted several comments arguing that the recent PPP poll showed Brian Moran had the most GOP support, but (at the risk of mixing metaphors), in the lion's den that sort of argument could not gain any traction whatsoever.

From their own mouths, on their own blog, the Commonwealth's Republicans tell us to give them a candidate for which they, too, can vote. As split as we are, Republicans are moreso. Are we going to throw this opportunity away?

Creigh is the clear path to a victory in November. He is the logical heir to Mark Warner and Tim Kaine in helping establish Democratic dominance in the Old Dominion, and adding to the foundation begun by our previous two governors, brick by brick, for enduring Progressive policies and a generation-long Prgressive majority to advance the Commonwealth.