I just want to say a few words about Terry McAuliffe.
I have refrained from commenting on the recent primary, but given all the noise surrounding McAuliffe’s candidacy, and several post-election analyses I have seen that I think simply miss the mark, I have a few comments.
First, several of the blogosphere’s McAuliffe-haters have asserted that but for their relentless stop-Terry-at-all-costs campaign, he might have won. Some of these bloggers that supported Brian Moran consider the election result quite unfair, believing they did the heavy lifting while Deeds sat back and garnered the benefit.
Obviously, such speculation, by its very nature, is not disprovable, but my sense it that these folks made little difference in the race, and may even have been a net benefit to McAuliffe (pun intended). While I would guess that the process of writing and posting rants against McAuliffe and his supporters had some cathartic benefit for them, in their self-righteous rage the McAuliffe haters simply failed to bother to lay out a compelling case against McAuliffe. There were plenty of allegations of guilt by association, but little proof of actual wrongdoing, at least as far as I could see. Just reading over comments to these posts on Daily Kos, where they found at least some audience (the Virginia blogosphere having quickyl tired of it), overall opinion seemed to turn against the relentless negativity as time went on – recs and tips grew fewer, even as comment activity raged on -- as with repetition the arguments castigating McAuliffe tended to reveal their flaws more than they magnified their strengths.
As for Brian Moran’s negative campaign against McAuliffe, lame both it substance and implementation, it seemed to hurt Moran more than McAuliffe.
The fact is that McAuliffe had two weaknesses in this campaign that no amount of money or personality on his part could overcome. The first was his lifetime lack of involvement in Virginia politics that left him without a reservoir of emotional and deep support in the Commonwealth upon which to draw. Supporters became enamored of him, but they were never heart and soul in his corner. When Deeds gained some momentum, it was easy enough for them to jump ship.
The second problem stemmed from the first; in order to overcome his lack of Virginia experience, McAuliffe's message was necessarily contradictory. On the one hand, as a Democrat he sought to portray himself as an heir to the Warner-Kaine legacy. On the other hand, McAuliffe also had to run as an outsider who would go into Richmond, do things a new way, and shake things up. He could not logically sustain both arguments.
This was clear in the dispute over payday lending. When McAuliffe criticized Deeds and Moran for their votes in this area, Deeds countered, correctly in my view, that he was tacitly criticizing Warner and Kaine, as well. McAuliffe tried to deny that he was doing so and to distinguish Warner and Kaine’s records from Deeds and Moran’s, but it never made much sense, because the differences, at best, were on the edges.
Most voters, obviously, don’t think that deeply about a candidate’s message or parse it so closely. But voters, IMHO, do sense these inconsistencies on a gut level. As creatures who want things to make sense, when we perceive something that doesn’t, our fight or flight instinct takes over. Since 225,000 Virginian Democrats couldn’t each kick the crap out of McAuliffe, they simply took flight and voted for someone else.
Early in the race, McAuliffe said if he were the nominee, he would be able to help House of Delegate candidates to raise money. He was challenged to pledge to do so even if he were not the nominee, and he did so pledge.
Much more than any help McAuliffe will give to Deeds, I’m interested to see what involvement he has in the less glamorous down-ticket races, and whether his interest will carry over into the 2010 and 2011 elections, as well.
Or will his obvious desire for the spotlight pull him in a different direction?
Depending upon how that plays out, we will find out what Terry McAuliffe really wants, and depending upon what that is, he might find a much more welcoming electorate in 2013.
Showing posts with label Terry McAuliffe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terry McAuliffe. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
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?
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?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
WaPo Busts McAuliffe on Third Grade-Prison Connection BS
This article from the Washington Post made me laugh.
Some excerpts:
Hey, he was on a roll!
Here is the amazing thing. Not only is it not true, it's not even arguably true. It is demonstrably and unambiguously false.
WaPo again:
So, you would think McAuliffe might backtrack a little, having been busted advancing an urban legend as a factual basis for its policy.
Uh, not exactly. The article states:
Let me get this straight. McAuliffe is "comfortable" spreading stories he knows to be urban legends, rather than using actual facts, because it is a convenient way to generate public support for a policy he favors.
The mere fact that it happens to be in support of a good policy in no way changes things -- as a matter of principle, this is wrong. Facts matter.
Some excerpts:
"Imagine if your entire future was determined by what you did in the third grade," says Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe in a television advertisement promoting his plan to expand preschool. "Did you know we use the failure rates of third-graders to help predict how many prison spots Virginia will need in 15 years?"
You didn't know? Could be because it's not true -- at least not in Virginia.
Hey, he was on a roll!
Here is the amazing thing. Not only is it not true, it's not even arguably true. It is demonstrably and unambiguously false.
WaPo again:
"It's catchy," said Peter E. Leone, director of the National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice at the University of Maryland, often cited as the source of the link. "And it's totally bogus."
[snip]
Leone has not ruled out the possibility that a state uses elementary test scores this way, but he has not found one.
"It's like an urban legend," Leone said, adding that he has been fielding calls for years from reporters and politicians researching similar assertions.
[snip]
In Virginia, at least, it is definitely untrue. Barry R. Green, director of Virginia's Juvenile Justice Department, said that when officials draw up six-year plans for how much prison space the state will need, they rely on factors that include arrest and conviction trends, but not test scores or any other education data. A policy group convened at the end of the process discusses general social issues, Green added.
[snip]
Prison officials in California called the claim "absolutely untrue," saying they must perennially debunk assertions that the state uses elementary reading in prison forecasts.
So, you would think McAuliffe might backtrack a little, having been busted advancing an urban legend as a factual basis for its policy.
Uh, not exactly. The article states:
Since the ad began airing in Richmond, Norfolk and Roanoke, McAuliffe's campaign has said third-grade scores aren't part of the official formula Virginia uses to plot prison construction. But the campaign says the ad was designed as a tangible and understandable way to bring home the idea that quality preschool is a smart investment.
"We feel comfortable using third-grade reading scores as a way of communicating, in shorthand, the importance of education in predictions of long-term social behavior, including predictions about crime rates, which are then used to determine the number of prison beds that we are constructing," said McAuliffe communications director Delacey Skinner.
Let me get this straight. McAuliffe is "comfortable" spreading stories he knows to be urban legends, rather than using actual facts, because it is a convenient way to generate public support for a policy he favors.
The mere fact that it happens to be in support of a good policy in no way changes things -- as a matter of principle, this is wrong. Facts matter.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
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?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
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:
Bob McDonnell:
Brian Moran:
Terry McAuliffe:
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.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
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:
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.
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.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
McAuliffe's Problem Is Not What He Has Done, But What He Hasn't
For me, today’s debate on various blogs over Terry McAuliffe and the Washington Post article about his business background (which was pretty good except for the fact that it reported no new information and failed to provide any insight into McAuliffe or the election whatsoever -- how on Earth did this article get on the front page above the fold?) utterly misses the point of why McAuliffe is not the best candidate to represent the Democrats in November.
The problem with Terry McAuliffe is not what he has done in the past, but what he hasn’t done.
McAuliffe lacks the lifetime of professional involvement with Virginia issues and Virginia politics that Creigh Deeds has, that Democrats will need in November to beat Bob McDonnell, and that Virginians will need the next four years.
The issue is not whether McAuliffe is a “carpetbagger.” He is not. He did not come here to run for Governor, but he has lived in the Commonwealth for 20 years. Furthermore, as McAuliffe argues, Brian Moran is not from here, and besides the occasional silly comment about his accent, no one calls him a carpetbagger. More importantly, McAuliffe argues, the fact that neither Tim Kaine nor Mark Warner were from here did not prevent them from becoming Governor. I’ve heard McAuliffe point most directly to Mark Warner, for whom Governor was his first elective office.
But the comparisons to Kaine and Warner, and even to a lesser degree to Moran, are instructive, although not in a way that helps McAuliffe. The issue is not how long McAuliffe has lived here, but what he has done in connection with local and state political issues during that time.
Before either Warner or Kaine was elected governor, each had a great deal of experience in Virginia political life.
Governor may have been Warner’s first elective office, but before that he managed Doug Wilder’s campaign, and served as Chairman of the DPVA. And before winning the Governorship in 2001, he ran a prior statewide campaign for Senator against John Warner.
Tim Kaine, meanwhile, was elected to the city council of Richmond in 1994 and selected Mayor in 1998. And he was, of course, elected Lt. Governor in 2001.
On his website, a McAuliffe fact sheet asks the question, “Has Terry been involved in Virginia politics?” Here is the complete answer:
In other words, “No, he has not.” Cutting a few checks to spend someone else's money is not "involvement."
Compare this record to Creigh’s, who was elected Commonwealth’s Attorney from Bath County, served in the House of Delegates from 1991 to 2001, and in the Senate from 2001 to present. And Creigh has run a statewide race, in 2005, when he fought Bob McDonnell to a tie despite being outspent two to one.
These record simply do not compare.
For that matter, nor does McAuliffe’s record in this sense compare with that of Brian Moran, who has been in the House of Delegates for twenty years, and was a prosecutor in Arlington before that.
This experience differential has two very important consequences for Democrats and Virginians. First, Creigh’s wealth of experience in Richmond will simply make him a better, more effective Governor. Second, McAuliffe’s lack of experience runs the risk of becoming an insurmountable issue in the campaign against McDonnell.
McAuliffe real response to the lack of experience argument is that not all great ideas come from Richmond, but that is misdirection. As much as Obama was able to ride the need for change that was in the air in 2008, I don’t sense an equivalent “throw the rascals out” sentiment in Virginia in 2009 for McAuliffe to tap into. Take a look at Kaine’s approval ratings. Folks seem more happy than not with their state government. Sure, while the House of Delegates can be comically inept and obstructionist, it operates out of most citizens' sights. For the "we need an outsider to shake things up" argument to work, people have to be fundamentally unhappy with their chief executive heading into the election, and here in virginia, that is not the case.
Terry McAuliffe is a very intelligent guy and a quick study. He seems to intellectually grasp the key issues. He seems like an able campaigner. He is obviously a good fundraiser. Should he be the nominee, I’ll be behind him 100%.
But I sincerely hope he is not the nominee. There is nothing he can do about his lack of Virginia experience between now and November, and Democrats who are supporting him and who claim this is not a problem are kidding themselves.
The problem with Terry McAuliffe is not what he has done in the past, but what he hasn’t done.
McAuliffe lacks the lifetime of professional involvement with Virginia issues and Virginia politics that Creigh Deeds has, that Democrats will need in November to beat Bob McDonnell, and that Virginians will need the next four years.
The issue is not whether McAuliffe is a “carpetbagger.” He is not. He did not come here to run for Governor, but he has lived in the Commonwealth for 20 years. Furthermore, as McAuliffe argues, Brian Moran is not from here, and besides the occasional silly comment about his accent, no one calls him a carpetbagger. More importantly, McAuliffe argues, the fact that neither Tim Kaine nor Mark Warner were from here did not prevent them from becoming Governor. I’ve heard McAuliffe point most directly to Mark Warner, for whom Governor was his first elective office.
But the comparisons to Kaine and Warner, and even to a lesser degree to Moran, are instructive, although not in a way that helps McAuliffe. The issue is not how long McAuliffe has lived here, but what he has done in connection with local and state political issues during that time.
Before either Warner or Kaine was elected governor, each had a great deal of experience in Virginia political life.
Governor may have been Warner’s first elective office, but before that he managed Doug Wilder’s campaign, and served as Chairman of the DPVA. And before winning the Governorship in 2001, he ran a prior statewide campaign for Senator against John Warner.
Tim Kaine, meanwhile, was elected to the city council of Richmond in 1994 and selected Mayor in 1998. And he was, of course, elected Lt. Governor in 2001.
On his website, a McAuliffe fact sheet asks the question, “Has Terry been involved in Virginia politics?” Here is the complete answer:
As Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terry invested unprecedented resources in Virginia Democrats’ grassroots political infrastructure. In 2001, when Mark Warner ran for Governor, the DNC gave $1.5 million to support Virginia Democrats up and down the ticket. In 2005, when Tim Kaine ran for governor, the DNC gave $5 million to Virginia Democrats – which, at the time, was the single largest donation from the national party of its kind.
In other words, “No, he has not.” Cutting a few checks to spend someone else's money is not "involvement."
Compare this record to Creigh’s, who was elected Commonwealth’s Attorney from Bath County, served in the House of Delegates from 1991 to 2001, and in the Senate from 2001 to present. And Creigh has run a statewide race, in 2005, when he fought Bob McDonnell to a tie despite being outspent two to one.
These record simply do not compare.
For that matter, nor does McAuliffe’s record in this sense compare with that of Brian Moran, who has been in the House of Delegates for twenty years, and was a prosecutor in Arlington before that.
This experience differential has two very important consequences for Democrats and Virginians. First, Creigh’s wealth of experience in Richmond will simply make him a better, more effective Governor. Second, McAuliffe’s lack of experience runs the risk of becoming an insurmountable issue in the campaign against McDonnell.
McAuliffe real response to the lack of experience argument is that not all great ideas come from Richmond, but that is misdirection. As much as Obama was able to ride the need for change that was in the air in 2008, I don’t sense an equivalent “throw the rascals out” sentiment in Virginia in 2009 for McAuliffe to tap into. Take a look at Kaine’s approval ratings. Folks seem more happy than not with their state government. Sure, while the House of Delegates can be comically inept and obstructionist, it operates out of most citizens' sights. For the "we need an outsider to shake things up" argument to work, people have to be fundamentally unhappy with their chief executive heading into the election, and here in virginia, that is not the case.
Terry McAuliffe is a very intelligent guy and a quick study. He seems to intellectually grasp the key issues. He seems like an able campaigner. He is obviously a good fundraiser. Should he be the nominee, I’ll be behind him 100%.
But I sincerely hope he is not the nominee. There is nothing he can do about his lack of Virginia experience between now and November, and Democrats who are supporting him and who claim this is not a problem are kidding themselves.
Monday, April 27, 2009
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)
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)
Sunday, April 19, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
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:
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:
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:
Thursday, April 9, 2009
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:
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?
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?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
New PPP Poll: Moran, Deeds Gain
Public Policy Polling has its latest poll on the Democratic primary up. PPP concludes that the "race remains up for grabs."
Bottom line:
Moran - 22%
McAuliffe - 18%
Deeds - 15%
Undecided - 45%
Last month was:
Moran - 19%
McAuliffe - 21%
Deeds - 14%
Last month compared to this month is all within the MoE, so doesn't really say much in terms of movement.
Favorability/Unfavorability:
Moran - 34/15
Deeds - 31/12
McAuliffe 32/29
That is not good news for Terry McAuliffe.
Favorability/Unfavorability among young voters (18-29):
Deeds - 47/22
Moran - 36/36
McAuliffe - 36/44
Not sure what that means, but it's interesting. I hope to be able to look more closely into the numbers later.
Bottom line:
Moran - 22%
McAuliffe - 18%
Deeds - 15%
Undecided - 45%
Last month was:
Moran - 19%
McAuliffe - 21%
Deeds - 14%
Last month compared to this month is all within the MoE, so doesn't really say much in terms of movement.
Favorability/Unfavorability:
Moran - 34/15
Deeds - 31/12
McAuliffe 32/29
That is not good news for Terry McAuliffe.
Favorability/Unfavorability among young voters (18-29):
Deeds - 47/22
Moran - 36/36
McAuliffe - 36/44
Not sure what that means, but it's interesting. I hope to be able to look more closely into the numbers later.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Pasta and Politics in Charlottesville
The Charlottesville Democratic Party held its annual pasta dinner last night. It is the party’s main fund-raiser, and is usually a pretty fun evening. The politicking is casual, and the talk is usually sauce and pasta. I’m not a good numbers counter, but I’d estimate there were at least 200 people there.
Brian Moran was the only Gubernatorial candidate to show up. Creigh was scheduled, and several senior staff members were they, including campaign manager Joe Abbey, but his plane was grounded in Portsmouth by the weather, and it wasn’t to be.
Terry McAuliffe, meanwhile, blew off the event, which is a shame for him. There was not a lot of love for Terry among the people I spoke with. Frequently, I heard comments like “Carpetbagger,” “Not a real Virginian,” and “What’s he doing in the race anyhow.” I don’t share these sentiments, but it suggests to me that if McAuliffe is striking this note in Charlottesville, he has to be having problems in virtually every area of the Commonwealth outside of Northern Virginia.
Anyway, back to the candidate who did show, Brian Moran. He gave a decent, if uninspiring speech that was warmly and politely received. It was probably his standard stump speech, but as Mrs. Aznew remarked, people at the Pasta Supper are eating and chatting, not really listening, so the speech might have appealed more to an audience there to actually listen to speeches, and not socialize.
The real action is in the schmoozing, Interestingly, Brian Moran didn’t look too comfortable working the crowd. In fact, he spent much time standing alone, as opposed to actively engaging people on a personal level. I don’t know if it means anything, but his reticence was interesting to see, especially if you think of successful politicians as gregarious types who draw energy from crowds, like Bill Clinton or Mark Warner.
After his speech, Moran did introduce himself to people at several tables, including my wife (who is completely non-political and finds it utterly impossible to keep track of the people she meets at these things for 15 seconds) and me. Moran doesn’t know me – we met for five seconds a year ago at the DPVA convention a year ago, but we had the following exchange:
Moran: Hi, Alan, good to see you.
Aznew: Thanks. Nice to meet you.
Moran: Nancy, good to see you. (Moran takes off)
Nancy (to me): How does he know my name? Have we met him before?
Aznew: You’re wearing a name tag.
Nancy: Oh. Right.
Anyway, good for Brian Moran for showing up, eating some pasta and hanging around for a while. His wife was there, too, and she seemed quite at home chatting people up. I think he had his kids with him, also.
All four LG candidates were there. They were each given 3 minutes to speak. Jon Bowerbank spoke first and stuck to his three minutes. So did Pat Edmundson. What saps for sticking to the time limits! Jody Wagner paid no attention to the time limit, which may even have been okay of she had something interesting to say, but, unfortunately, she didn’t. She did hang out for a while, though.
Mike Signer, on the other hand, shined. He arrived late, and may have gone over his three minutes slightly -- nowhere near Wagner’s endless address -- but he remains the only LG candidate to articulate a unique and forceful vision of what he would do with the LG office beyond the statutory requirements.
By far, he also seemed to generate the most interest from audience members coming up to speak to him afterwards. He was still there, talking with voters, when I left. As I’ve said before, he is an interesting candidate.
The pasta dinner features a contest for the best sauce. Last year, Tom Perriello won this award. This year, I thought Kristin Szakos, who was a coordinator for Barack Obama and a delegate to the DNC, and is also a recently announced candidate for Charlottesville City Council, won hands down. You think pasta dinner, of course, you think Italian, but Kristin came with a daring Thai peanut sauce that blew my socks off.
Unfortunately, she did not win. I think the Thai theme was just too unexpected and out of the blue in a venue where the expectation is Italian for enough people to give it a fair shot. Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris, with his spicy eggplant sauce, won the trophy. Dave is a great guy, a great mayor and a great Progressive, and in recognition of that and in honor of his victory last night, I have added his blog onto my blogroll.
Unfortunately, I am a lousy photographer, and I just got a brand new fancy camera that I am just learing to operate, so I apologize in advance for the crappy images below:
Brian Moran addresses the crowd. Notice how no one is listening. This is actually not a reflection on Brian.
Mike Signer chatting with voters after his speech.
Another of Brian Moran
Steve Shannon
Brian Moran was the only Gubernatorial candidate to show up. Creigh was scheduled, and several senior staff members were they, including campaign manager Joe Abbey, but his plane was grounded in Portsmouth by the weather, and it wasn’t to be.
Terry McAuliffe, meanwhile, blew off the event, which is a shame for him. There was not a lot of love for Terry among the people I spoke with. Frequently, I heard comments like “Carpetbagger,” “Not a real Virginian,” and “What’s he doing in the race anyhow.” I don’t share these sentiments, but it suggests to me that if McAuliffe is striking this note in Charlottesville, he has to be having problems in virtually every area of the Commonwealth outside of Northern Virginia.
Anyway, back to the candidate who did show, Brian Moran. He gave a decent, if uninspiring speech that was warmly and politely received. It was probably his standard stump speech, but as Mrs. Aznew remarked, people at the Pasta Supper are eating and chatting, not really listening, so the speech might have appealed more to an audience there to actually listen to speeches, and not socialize.
The real action is in the schmoozing, Interestingly, Brian Moran didn’t look too comfortable working the crowd. In fact, he spent much time standing alone, as opposed to actively engaging people on a personal level. I don’t know if it means anything, but his reticence was interesting to see, especially if you think of successful politicians as gregarious types who draw energy from crowds, like Bill Clinton or Mark Warner.
After his speech, Moran did introduce himself to people at several tables, including my wife (who is completely non-political and finds it utterly impossible to keep track of the people she meets at these things for 15 seconds) and me. Moran doesn’t know me – we met for five seconds a year ago at the DPVA convention a year ago, but we had the following exchange:
Moran: Hi, Alan, good to see you.
Aznew: Thanks. Nice to meet you.
Moran: Nancy, good to see you. (Moran takes off)
Nancy (to me): How does he know my name? Have we met him before?
Aznew: You’re wearing a name tag.
Nancy: Oh. Right.
Anyway, good for Brian Moran for showing up, eating some pasta and hanging around for a while. His wife was there, too, and she seemed quite at home chatting people up. I think he had his kids with him, also.
All four LG candidates were there. They were each given 3 minutes to speak. Jon Bowerbank spoke first and stuck to his three minutes. So did Pat Edmundson. What saps for sticking to the time limits! Jody Wagner paid no attention to the time limit, which may even have been okay of she had something interesting to say, but, unfortunately, she didn’t. She did hang out for a while, though.
Mike Signer, on the other hand, shined. He arrived late, and may have gone over his three minutes slightly -- nowhere near Wagner’s endless address -- but he remains the only LG candidate to articulate a unique and forceful vision of what he would do with the LG office beyond the statutory requirements.
By far, he also seemed to generate the most interest from audience members coming up to speak to him afterwards. He was still there, talking with voters, when I left. As I’ve said before, he is an interesting candidate.
The pasta dinner features a contest for the best sauce. Last year, Tom Perriello won this award. This year, I thought Kristin Szakos, who was a coordinator for Barack Obama and a delegate to the DNC, and is also a recently announced candidate for Charlottesville City Council, won hands down. You think pasta dinner, of course, you think Italian, but Kristin came with a daring Thai peanut sauce that blew my socks off.
Unfortunately, she did not win. I think the Thai theme was just too unexpected and out of the blue in a venue where the expectation is Italian for enough people to give it a fair shot. Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris, with his spicy eggplant sauce, won the trophy. Dave is a great guy, a great mayor and a great Progressive, and in recognition of that and in honor of his victory last night, I have added his blog onto my blogroll.
Unfortunately, I am a lousy photographer, and I just got a brand new fancy camera that I am just learing to operate, so I apologize in advance for the crappy images below:
Brian Moran addresses the crowd. Notice how no one is listening. This is actually not a reflection on Brian.
Mike Signer chatting with voters after his speech.
Another of Brian Moran
Steve Shannon
Creigh's path to victory
Jeff Schapiro has a good column in today's RTD that sums up the state of the primary contest nicely. Reading between the lines, he seems to be saying Creigh is the guy to watch, but, hey, I'm admittedly biased.
Here's the nut graf:
If we get to mid-April and the undecided vote is still at 50% + (which seems likely to happen), then Creigh will have his opening, and the next month will determine whether he can take the nomination. From mid-May to election day, he will be swamped in NoVA by McAuliffe and Moran's millions, but if, during that mid-April to mid-May 4-week period, he can get his NoVA numbers up to 25% or so (assuming he is right now at about 13% based on the Connolly party straw poll, which I think may actually have accurately measured Creigh's current support), then the nomination is within his reach reach. Here's why.
If Creigh gets to 25% in NoVA, he would need about 43% from the remainder of the Commonwealth to reach 37% and victory. Assuming he would take 55% of the "rural" vote (2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th), he would only need 16% of Richmond/Tidewater/HR. Even if takes only 50% of the rural districts, then he needs 27% of the Richmond/Tidewater/HR areas -- certainly doable.
More importantly, though, if Creigh is able to reach 25% in NoVA. it puts McAuliffe and Moran in a bind, because it means that for either of them to win, they will have to soundly defeat the other in NoVA. If Creigh takes 25%, and those guys split the rest of NoVA evenly, it will do neither of them any good, because at worst Creigh will win with 37% or so of the statewide vote. So, if Creigh reaches 25% up there and is able to turn NoVA into a "must win" for both McAuliffe and Moran, it will suck up money and time, leaving Creigh relatively free to campaign in Richmond/Tidewater and, of course, concentrate on GOTV in the rural areas of the Commonwealth where he is well-known and popular.
If Creigh doesn't reach those levels, however, then both Moran and McAuliffe have numerous paths to victory. Obviously, regardless of how Creigh does, netiher McAuliffe nor Moran can afford to lose NoVA, but if Creigh takes, say, only 15% in NoVA, then McAuliffe and Moran can, in theory, afford a "push" in NoVA where they each take 42% and fight for victory elsewhere, probably Hampton Roads and Richmond. This would essentially knock Creigh out of the race and create the two-man election the M & M boys seem to want.
Sure is lucky for Creigh it worked out that all those debates and joint appearances fall within that key month for him.
Here's the nut graf:
Deeds has been nearly invisible, focusing on fundraising, including a big-bucks throwdown with coal barons, and delaying some of the public manifestations of a campaign until mid-April.
Look then for the position papers and advertising. Deeds must, by necessity, husband dollars for the best -- and only -- opportunity to grab the attention of voters: the closing half of the primary season.
If we get to mid-April and the undecided vote is still at 50% + (which seems likely to happen), then Creigh will have his opening, and the next month will determine whether he can take the nomination. From mid-May to election day, he will be swamped in NoVA by McAuliffe and Moran's millions, but if, during that mid-April to mid-May 4-week period, he can get his NoVA numbers up to 25% or so (assuming he is right now at about 13% based on the Connolly party straw poll, which I think may actually have accurately measured Creigh's current support), then the nomination is within his reach reach. Here's why.
If Creigh gets to 25% in NoVA, he would need about 43% from the remainder of the Commonwealth to reach 37% and victory. Assuming he would take 55% of the "rural" vote (2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th), he would only need 16% of Richmond/Tidewater/HR. Even if takes only 50% of the rural districts, then he needs 27% of the Richmond/Tidewater/HR areas -- certainly doable.
More importantly, though, if Creigh is able to reach 25% in NoVA. it puts McAuliffe and Moran in a bind, because it means that for either of them to win, they will have to soundly defeat the other in NoVA. If Creigh takes 25%, and those guys split the rest of NoVA evenly, it will do neither of them any good, because at worst Creigh will win with 37% or so of the statewide vote. So, if Creigh reaches 25% up there and is able to turn NoVA into a "must win" for both McAuliffe and Moran, it will suck up money and time, leaving Creigh relatively free to campaign in Richmond/Tidewater and, of course, concentrate on GOTV in the rural areas of the Commonwealth where he is well-known and popular.
If Creigh doesn't reach those levels, however, then both Moran and McAuliffe have numerous paths to victory. Obviously, regardless of how Creigh does, netiher McAuliffe nor Moran can afford to lose NoVA, but if Creigh takes, say, only 15% in NoVA, then McAuliffe and Moran can, in theory, afford a "push" in NoVA where they each take 42% and fight for victory elsewhere, probably Hampton Roads and Richmond. This would essentially knock Creigh out of the race and create the two-man election the M & M boys seem to want.
Sure is lucky for Creigh it worked out that all those debates and joint appearances fall within that key month for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
