By shunning the Shad Planking this year in favor of a campaign swing through Southwest Virginia with Congressman Rick Boucher, Creigh Deeds is signaling that his campaign will try something the 2009 Democratic Primary hasn't seen enough of yet: reaching out to actual voters.
Politically, the Shad Planking is a show of inside political muscle, resources and organizational strength. As Jim Nolan wrote today in the RTD, perhaps Creigh learned a lesson from the JJ. "Well-heeled Democrat Terry McAuliffe upstaged his rivals by turning the event into a free-spending spectacle," he wrote, "hiring a marching band to drumroll his arrival, filling 39 tables with supporters, putting up 1,000 signs, and handing out 2,500 fortune cookies to attendees."
Indeed, the huge "TERRY" sign that stretched across the entrance to the JJ haunted my dreams for weeks.
For his part, Brian Moran is the insider's insider, what with all those endorsements "he carries around in his pocket like so many nickles and dimes."
Why even try to compete with that? What is there for Creigh to gain at the Shad Planking?
So far, Creigh has made all the right decisions in this campaign. When Brian Moran abandoned his seat in the House of Delegates to concentrate on his run for Governor, Creigh faced a decision whether to resign his own seat. He decided not to do so, believing he owed it to his constituents to stay and play a roll through this extremely tough General Assembly session. Did he lose fundraising and campaigning time? You bet. Are the people of Virginia better off that he stayed and fought? Yeah, we are.
On June 10, when Virginia's political analysts look back and wonder how Creigh won the nomination, I suspect that this might be seen as one of the key decisions. Some in Virginia's blogosphere and some among Virginia's political class have speculated that Creigh skipping the Shad Planking is a sign of trouble in his campaign, even speculating he must be dropping out.
They could not be more wrong. Rather, it is a sign of Creigh's strength and his belief in what he is doing.
At the end of the day, you get elected with votes, not with endorsements or copious amounts of signs screaming your name. I can't think of a better way to let the citizens of Virginia know that their votes will really count, and will really be appreciated, and are really valued, than by showing them how hard you are willing to work hard to earn them every single day between now and the election.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Republicans explain why Creigh scares them the most, Moran the least
Blue Virginia has a post up knocking down the idiotic idea that Creigh may be dropping out of the race. Lowell traced the story back to a story at Bearing Drift that read as follows:
There is no truth to it whatsoever. Why on Earth would Creigh drop out right before five debates that will arguably decide the race? Obviously, there is no reason. The real mystery here is why "staffers" (note, not just one person without a clue) for Jody Wagner would seek to spread such an obviously false story.
But as I followed Lowell's links to read the source material for myself, what really caught my attention were the comments to the Brearing Drift post from Republican readers. Recently, I saw an article somewhere that reported on the fears of Republican operatives of a McAuliffe candidacy in the Fall. Being professionals, their reason was his fundraising prowess. Not a single operative said he or she feared Brian Moran. Several feared Creigh because of his ability to appeal to independents, moderates and disaffected Republicans.
The comments to this story at Bearing Drift seem to bear that out.
Here are the comments on point:
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Joel McDonald, of VBDems, who recently published a call for Creigh to leave the race and throw his support to Brian Moran across the Progressive Blogoshere, posted several comments arguing that the recent PPP poll showed Brian Moran had the most GOP support, but (at the risk of mixing metaphors), in the lion's den that sort of argument could not gain any traction whatsoever.
From their own mouths, on their own blog, the Commonwealth's Republicans tell us to give them a candidate for which they, too, can vote. As split as we are, Republicans are moreso. Are we going to throw this opportunity away?
Creigh is the clear path to a victory in November. He is the logical heir to Mark Warner and Tim Kaine in helping establish Democratic dominance in the Old Dominion, and adding to the foundation begun by our previous two governors, brick by brick, for enduring Progressive policies and a generation-long Prgressive majority to advance the Commonwealth.
Last night at their Richmond office kick off, Jody Wagner staffers told Bearing Drift that Creigh Deeds was withdrawing from the Democratic race for Governor. Coming from the front runner for the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor that’s a big blow for Deeds who is currently polling third in the race behind Brian Moran and Terry McAulliffe.
There is no truth to it whatsoever. Why on Earth would Creigh drop out right before five debates that will arguably decide the race? Obviously, there is no reason. The real mystery here is why "staffers" (note, not just one person without a clue) for Jody Wagner would seek to spread such an obviously false story.
But as I followed Lowell's links to read the source material for myself, what really caught my attention were the comments to the Brearing Drift post from Republican readers. Recently, I saw an article somewhere that reported on the fears of Republican operatives of a McAuliffe candidacy in the Fall. Being professionals, their reason was his fundraising prowess. Not a single operative said he or she feared Brian Moran. Several feared Creigh because of his ability to appeal to independents, moderates and disaffected Republicans.
The comments to this story at Bearing Drift seem to bear that out.
Here are the comments on point:
This [Deeds dropping out] would be great for us [Republicans], as Deeds is the only Democrat that could pull significant Republican voters away from McDonnell. Moran and McAuliffe are both way too far to the left.
* * * * * * *
In a perfect GOP world Creigh, Brian and Terry would fight tooth and nails for the nomination. In the process slinging mud at each other. They would all make it to the primary. Brian would win. Their respective supporters would stay divided and Bob would become the 71st Gov of the Commonwealth.
* * * * * * *
Look... I REALLY dislike Bob McDonnell. I sure don’t want to vote for him.
However, Brian Moran is a far lefty. He is also a big time enviornmentalist. I know that plays well with you and Eileen but, to me that is too much to ignore and vote for the guy. Understandably, he’s a favorite in the left of center crowd and Sierra Club democrats.
Terry McAwful has the money. That’s his advantage. His DNC partisanship coupled with his “carpet bagger” status however, will be enough to energize Republicans that are soft on McDonnell. They’ll hold their noses and vote for Bob “one gun a month” McDonnell. Some but, not all.
[snip]
You guys can try to paint Moran as conservative all you want. It will be just too damn easy to destroy that facade with Moran’s record and the enviornmentalist agenda he has. What you like about Moran, really is a turn off to us. I couldn’t vote for him.
You have disaffected people that really are upset with McDonnell. I would suggest you’d listen but, the Moran colored glasses you’re wearing won’t let you see that. Or will you be objective and see it for what it really is?
Joel McDonald, of VBDems, who recently published a call for Creigh to leave the race and throw his support to Brian Moran across the Progressive Blogoshere, posted several comments arguing that the recent PPP poll showed Brian Moran had the most GOP support, but (at the risk of mixing metaphors), in the lion's den that sort of argument could not gain any traction whatsoever.
From their own mouths, on their own blog, the Commonwealth's Republicans tell us to give them a candidate for which they, too, can vote. As split as we are, Republicans are moreso. Are we going to throw this opportunity away?
Creigh is the clear path to a victory in November. He is the logical heir to Mark Warner and Tim Kaine in helping establish Democratic dominance in the Old Dominion, and adding to the foundation begun by our previous two governors, brick by brick, for enduring Progressive policies and a generation-long Prgressive majority to advance the Commonwealth.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Latest Moran Snafu again raises doubts about campaign's direction
Crossposted to Daily Kos
With his latest Snafu, Brian Moran has shown, again, that based on the campaign he has run so far, he is arguably not ready to be the Democratic nominee for Governor.
As widely reported, lobbying firm BGR, founded by, among others, Republican operative Ed Rogers, hosted a fundraiser for Terry McAuliffe on March 24. The fundraiser came about, according to Politico, because Rogers and McAuliffe had become good friends through sharing green rooms over the years while waiting to debate one another on television.
Still, I think the fundraiser was a fair subject for criticism. For one thing, BGR was always a firm with only Republican clientele, but began only recently taking on Democratic clients. When someone who is an ideological opponent helps a candidate raise money, it is certainly fair to ask what they hope to get out of it.
Here, in my view, it became a question of magnitude and judgment. My problem was not that Rogers and McAuliffe were friends, or that one friend might help out another. If all had Rogers had done was donate to McAuliffe’s campaign because they were friends, there would be little, if any, cause to complain.
But the organization of a fundraiser using the business name turned it into a business transaction, not a personal gesture of friendship. It thus became fair to ask what Rogers and BGR hoped to get out of the fundraiser. Perhaps enhanced credibility among democrats?
If so, it also became fair to address the propriety of a Democrat – any Democrat – helping this particular Republican to gain credibility. There was plenty of YouTube footage of Rogers, shilling for John McCain last fall on the talking head circuit, criticizing Barack Obama – some of it offensive, especially his despicable use of the President’s middle, Hussein, as a epithet designed to create the impression that he could not be trusted. Disgusting.
The assault on McAuliffe began on March 12 when “University of Virginia law student, Marine and citizen journalist” Mike Stark posted an article at Huffington Post entitled, “McAuliffe Still Sleeping with Dogs.” Stark crossposted to DK, using the title, “McAuliffe has lost it,” and exhorted readers to “make sure” the diary hit the Rec List (it wound up with 399 Recs).
Stark’s article was factual, even if one didn’t agree with the conclusions it drew. As with much of Stark’s anti-McAuliffe work over the past couple of months, however, it was aimed more at a guilt-by-association than anything else (consider, for example, the title, “Sleeping with Dogs”), arguing that we should judge this candidate by the company he keeps. It is a theme Stark had touched on previously with respect to McAuliffe (See “Don’t do this Virginia,” on Blue Commonwealth).
Beneath the ersatz sensationalism of these articles, what they are calling into question is McAuliffe’s judgment about whom he chooses to associate professionally and personally (although less convincing was Stark’s efforts to tie McAuliffe to some racist dude who jumped into a snapshot with T-Mac by referring to the guy as McAuliffe’s “pal.” This sort of overreaching does make one question the sincerity of Stark’s previous allegations).
The fundraiser took place on March 24, and the next day, the Moran campaign issued the following press release::
Several days later, the Moran campaign issued another press release, this time featuring several prominent Democrats from around the Commonwealth, commenting on McAuliffe raising money with “anti-Obama lobbyist Ed Rogers.” Here is that release:
This criticism is clearly aimed at McAuliffe’s decision to allow Roger and his firm to raise money for his campaign. Given the case Moran made against McAuliffe, it is fair to conclude that any Democrat who associated with Rogers in this way ought to be subject to the same exact critique. If McAuliffe benefiting form a Rogers/BGR fundraiser is “offensive,” then isn’t any Democrat’s similar kind association with Rogers and BGR similarly “offensive?”
Say, for example, and, hey, I know this would never happen, but what if Rogers and BGR held a fundraiser for, oh, I don’t know, Mark Warner, well, we’d all have to reconsider our support … what…uh-oh … your kidding, right?
Unfortunately for Brian Moran, it’s no joke.
Anta Kumar of the Washington Post reported yesterday:
What’s more, the usually mild Kumar seems to mock Moran, asking “So what does Moran say now?”
Here is Roos’ response to Kumar, as reported by the Post:
Not exactly.
At no time did Mr. Roos raise the issue of McAuliffe’s “close, continuing and broader relationship with Ed Rogers?” In his first news release, he discussed only the fundraiser. The second release, consisting of third party quotes, references only the fundraiser. Neither release comes anywhere near limiting the criticism to “close, continuing and broader relationship.”
Secondly, Mr. Roos, did not say he found the relationship “questionable.” He said it was “offensive” and “sad.”
In light of the revelation that Rogers and BGR threw a similar affair for Warner as it did for McAuliffe, I understand the desire to walk the criticism back. But that is what happens when you let a blogger, in this case, Mike Stark, acting out of disdain for McAuliffe, not support of Moran, define your campaign message.
This isn’t the first time Moran’s efforts to criticize McAuliffe’s fundraising led to a serving of crow for him. Early in January, even before McAuliffe officially entered the race, Moran called on Creigh and McAuliffe not to accept out of state donations. According to the RTD:
Amusingly, it took James Martin about three seconds to check VPAP and post a pair of extensive comments to NLS showing that Brian Moran, himself, had raised significant sums from outside of Virginia.
It has been painfully obvious for some time now that McAuliffe’s entrance in the race has thrown Moran and his campaign for a loop and generated several unforced errors in the campaign. But what, if anything, does it say about the kind of general election candidate than Moran might be, or the kind of Governor he might make.
Moran has never had a tough election. He hails from a strongly Democratic area where he benefited from strong name recognition from day one thanks to his brother. This is the first time Virginia has seen him in a hard-fought campaign, and it has not been pretty, featuring in addition to the gaffes discussed above:
-- An ill-advised attack launched against McAuliffe at the JJ dinner that left even many of Moran’s supporters uncomfortable;
-- A nasty campaign in the blogosphere against two bloggers in particular who endorsed McAuliffe, that has included some ethically dubious tactics, including the leaking of private e-mails and the leveling of unfounded allegations of impropriety by campaign volunteers;
-- The exposure, by a Moran consultant, of the identity of another anonymous blogger who was the administrator of a web site the Moran campaign considered hostile, forcing the administrator to shut down the site so as not to lose his employment;
-- Moran’s last-second resignation of his House of Delegates seat that nearly resulted in a Republican victory in the special election for the seat in the lopsided Democratic district;
In this past Presidential election, as the economy unraveled in the waning weeks of the Bush Administration, Americans got to see how the respective candidates would handle a crisis. John McCain was out of control, one day declaring the economy fundamentally strong, the next suspending his candidacy to run back to Washington to broker a deal, only to end up as a fly in the ointment that nearly prevented a deal. Barack Obama, meanwhile, took a measured approach, remained calm and exuded confidence. In November, Americans made their choice. We made the right one.
Virginia Democrats are now getting a chance to see how their three candidates are handling themselves in a difficult campaign.
To be fair to Moran, every campaign has its ups and downs. But this record of gaffes, ethical missteps and misjudgments, while different people might draw different conclusions from it, ought to fairly be considered in deciding for whom to vote on June 9.
With his latest Snafu, Brian Moran has shown, again, that based on the campaign he has run so far, he is arguably not ready to be the Democratic nominee for Governor.
As widely reported, lobbying firm BGR, founded by, among others, Republican operative Ed Rogers, hosted a fundraiser for Terry McAuliffe on March 24. The fundraiser came about, according to Politico, because Rogers and McAuliffe had become good friends through sharing green rooms over the years while waiting to debate one another on television.
Still, I think the fundraiser was a fair subject for criticism. For one thing, BGR was always a firm with only Republican clientele, but began only recently taking on Democratic clients. When someone who is an ideological opponent helps a candidate raise money, it is certainly fair to ask what they hope to get out of it.
Here, in my view, it became a question of magnitude and judgment. My problem was not that Rogers and McAuliffe were friends, or that one friend might help out another. If all had Rogers had done was donate to McAuliffe’s campaign because they were friends, there would be little, if any, cause to complain.
But the organization of a fundraiser using the business name turned it into a business transaction, not a personal gesture of friendship. It thus became fair to ask what Rogers and BGR hoped to get out of the fundraiser. Perhaps enhanced credibility among democrats?
If so, it also became fair to address the propriety of a Democrat – any Democrat – helping this particular Republican to gain credibility. There was plenty of YouTube footage of Rogers, shilling for John McCain last fall on the talking head circuit, criticizing Barack Obama – some of it offensive, especially his despicable use of the President’s middle, Hussein, as a epithet designed to create the impression that he could not be trusted. Disgusting.
The assault on McAuliffe began on March 12 when “University of Virginia law student, Marine and citizen journalist” Mike Stark posted an article at Huffington Post entitled, “McAuliffe Still Sleeping with Dogs.” Stark crossposted to DK, using the title, “McAuliffe has lost it,” and exhorted readers to “make sure” the diary hit the Rec List (it wound up with 399 Recs).
Stark’s article was factual, even if one didn’t agree with the conclusions it drew. As with much of Stark’s anti-McAuliffe work over the past couple of months, however, it was aimed more at a guilt-by-association than anything else (consider, for example, the title, “Sleeping with Dogs”), arguing that we should judge this candidate by the company he keeps. It is a theme Stark had touched on previously with respect to McAuliffe (See “Don’t do this Virginia,” on Blue Commonwealth).
Beneath the ersatz sensationalism of these articles, what they are calling into question is McAuliffe’s judgment about whom he chooses to associate professionally and personally (although less convincing was Stark’s efforts to tie McAuliffe to some racist dude who jumped into a snapshot with T-Mac by referring to the guy as McAuliffe’s “pal.” This sort of overreaching does make one question the sincerity of Stark’s previous allegations).
The fundraiser took place on March 24, and the next day, the Moran campaign issued the following press release::
Moran Campaign Finds McAuliffe Fundraiser with Anti-Obama Operatives “Offensive”
ALEXANDRIA – Virginians for Brian Moran made the following statement about last night’s fundraiser for CEO Terry McAuliffe, hosted by Republican operative Ed Rogers at the lobbying firm he shares with Haley Barbour, Vice-Chair of the Republican Governors Association. Rogers has worked to defeat scores of Democrats nationwide, including President Barack Obama last year.
The Politico reported on the fundraiser yesterday afternoon:
Moran Campaign Manager Andrew Roos said:
“It’s offensive to see Terry McAuliffe raising money with the likes of Republican operative and lobbyist Ed Rogers. Rogers joined Rush Limbaugh and others in raising racially and religiously charged attacks against then Senator Obama. It’s sad that in the same week Terry McAuliffe aired a radio ad claiming credit for helping to elect Barack Obama, he’s holding a fundraiser with someone who did everything he could to defeat him. We need people who stand up to partner with President Obama in the White House not people who condone these kinds of Rove-style attacks.”
[snip]
Several days later, the Moran campaign issued another press release, this time featuring several prominent Democrats from around the Commonwealth, commenting on McAuliffe raising money with “anti-Obama lobbyist Ed Rogers.” Here is that release:
Statements on Anti-Obama Fundraiser
~ Leaders express concern about host Ed Rogers, Republican Lobbyist and Operative Responsible for Some of the Most Negative and Divisive Attacks on Obama ~
ALEXANDRIA – In response to last week’s Washington Post article regarding anti-Obama Republican Lobbyist Ed Rogers, who hosted a fundraiser to support Terry McAuliffe’s campaign for governor, several prominent Virginia supporters of President Obama released the following statements.
“There has always been a question about whether Terry McAuliffe would really stand behind President Barack Obama if he were elected Governor of Virginia. It’s one thing to say you will, but by having a fundraiser with Ed Rogers he’s proven that he won’t,” said former Virginia Beach City Councilwoman Louisa Strayhorn. Strayhorn was elected to be a national delegate to the historic 2008 Democratic National Convention pledged to Barack Obama.
She continued, “Ed Rogers and Rush Limbaugh led and defended the nastiest and most divisive attacks against Barack Obama, and if Terry McAuliffe stands with him, then Terry McAuliffe is standing against Barack Obama just as he did during the presidential primary.”
[snip]
“It is incredibly disappointing that Terry McAuliffe would raise money from people who led incredibly divisive attacks against President Obama during last year’s election,” Chesapeake City Councilman Bryan Collins said. “I know this will cause a great deal of skepticism about McAuliffe’s candidacy among the activists who worked so hard to elect the President.”
“Terry McAuliffe has been telling Virginia Democrats how much success he will bring with his fundraising prowess,” Norfolk Commissioner of Revenue Sharon McDonald said. “The Washington Post’s coverage of his fundraiser at the firm founded by Haley Barbour certainly begs the question: Why does he need to raise money from Ed Rogers, a Republican operative and Lee Atwater protégé, in the first place? Virginia Democrats find this offensive, and not the kind leadership we want in our next Governor.”
This criticism is clearly aimed at McAuliffe’s decision to allow Roger and his firm to raise money for his campaign. Given the case Moran made against McAuliffe, it is fair to conclude that any Democrat who associated with Rogers in this way ought to be subject to the same exact critique. If McAuliffe benefiting form a Rogers/BGR fundraiser is “offensive,” then isn’t any Democrat’s similar kind association with Rogers and BGR similarly “offensive?”
Say, for example, and, hey, I know this would never happen, but what if Rogers and BGR held a fundraiser for, oh, I don’t know, Mark Warner, well, we’d all have to reconsider our support … what…uh-oh … your kidding, right?
Unfortunately for Brian Moran, it’s no joke.
Anta Kumar of the Washington Post reported yesterday:
Last week, Democratic gubernatorial Brian Moran blasted his rival Terry McAuliffe for attending a Washington fundraiser hosted by BGR Group, a lobbying firm founded in part by Republican Ed Rogers.
But it turns out BGR and Rogers hosted a fundraiser for another Virginia Democrat.
A fundraiser honoring U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner of Virginia was held in October 2008 when the former governor was running for Senate. The invitation included Rogers, along with nine other lobbyists with BGR, including former Bush aide Eric Burgeson, Lanny Griffith, who worked in the George H.W. Bush White House and Bob Wood, chief of staff to former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.
What’s more, the usually mild Kumar seems to mock Moran, asking “So what does Moran say now?”
Here is Roos’ response to Kumar, as reported by the Post:
This isn't just about who you hold a fundraiser with. The question we've raised is about his close, continuing and broader relationship with Ed Rogers and we find it questionable."
Not exactly.
At no time did Mr. Roos raise the issue of McAuliffe’s “close, continuing and broader relationship with Ed Rogers?” In his first news release, he discussed only the fundraiser. The second release, consisting of third party quotes, references only the fundraiser. Neither release comes anywhere near limiting the criticism to “close, continuing and broader relationship.”
Secondly, Mr. Roos, did not say he found the relationship “questionable.” He said it was “offensive” and “sad.”
In light of the revelation that Rogers and BGR threw a similar affair for Warner as it did for McAuliffe, I understand the desire to walk the criticism back. But that is what happens when you let a blogger, in this case, Mike Stark, acting out of disdain for McAuliffe, not support of Moran, define your campaign message.
This isn’t the first time Moran’s efforts to criticize McAuliffe’s fundraising led to a serving of crow for him. Early in January, even before McAuliffe officially entered the race, Moran called on Creigh and McAuliffe not to accept out of state donations. According to the RTD:
The election should not be about "who can raise more money from national donors," Moran said. "Virginia Democrats should choose our nominee."
Amusingly, it took James Martin about three seconds to check VPAP and post a pair of extensive comments to NLS showing that Brian Moran, himself, had raised significant sums from outside of Virginia.
It has been painfully obvious for some time now that McAuliffe’s entrance in the race has thrown Moran and his campaign for a loop and generated several unforced errors in the campaign. But what, if anything, does it say about the kind of general election candidate than Moran might be, or the kind of Governor he might make.
Moran has never had a tough election. He hails from a strongly Democratic area where he benefited from strong name recognition from day one thanks to his brother. This is the first time Virginia has seen him in a hard-fought campaign, and it has not been pretty, featuring in addition to the gaffes discussed above:
-- An ill-advised attack launched against McAuliffe at the JJ dinner that left even many of Moran’s supporters uncomfortable;
-- A nasty campaign in the blogosphere against two bloggers in particular who endorsed McAuliffe, that has included some ethically dubious tactics, including the leaking of private e-mails and the leveling of unfounded allegations of impropriety by campaign volunteers;
-- The exposure, by a Moran consultant, of the identity of another anonymous blogger who was the administrator of a web site the Moran campaign considered hostile, forcing the administrator to shut down the site so as not to lose his employment;
-- Moran’s last-second resignation of his House of Delegates seat that nearly resulted in a Republican victory in the special election for the seat in the lopsided Democratic district;
In this past Presidential election, as the economy unraveled in the waning weeks of the Bush Administration, Americans got to see how the respective candidates would handle a crisis. John McCain was out of control, one day declaring the economy fundamentally strong, the next suspending his candidacy to run back to Washington to broker a deal, only to end up as a fly in the ointment that nearly prevented a deal. Barack Obama, meanwhile, took a measured approach, remained calm and exuded confidence. In November, Americans made their choice. We made the right one.
Virginia Democrats are now getting a chance to see how their three candidates are handling themselves in a difficult campaign.
To be fair to Moran, every campaign has its ups and downs. But this record of gaffes, ethical missteps and misjudgments, while different people might draw different conclusions from it, ought to fairly be considered in deciding for whom to vote on June 9.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Creigh to McDonnell: Apologize For These Hurtful Statements
Sen. Creigh Deeds joined Dick Cranwell, Sen. Mary Whipple and Cynthia Hull in calling on Bob McDonnell to condemn the divisive and unnecessary remarks of his campaign surrogate, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, concerning Virginians who live in the Northern part of the state, and to apolgize for "these hurtful statements."
As widely reported, Huckabee told a crown in Tazewell County that people in Northern Virginia think differently than they do ("I don't even know what that means," Creigh said), and that Northern Virginians don't know what it is like to have to "put a paycheck together."
Creigh likened Huckabee's ridiculous comments to those this past summer, when a John McCain supporter said the folks up in Northern Virginia who supported Barack Obama were not real Virginians.
Huckabee's foot-in-mouth episode also brings to mind George Allen's "Macaca Moment."
"We can't let Republicans pit Virginians against one another," Creigh said, noting that there are signs of economic distress, whether lost jobs, foreclosures or rising healthcare costs, that stretch across the Commonwealth. Times are tough all over.
"Bob McDonnell doesn't understand we are one Commonwealth," Creigh added. "We are all bound together. That's the only way it works."
Creigh further said "This [kind of attitude] sets us back," and it explains why Richmond can't accomplish anything, specifically citing the regional conflicts over transportation that have prevented Virginia from addressing this critical issue.
"What I say in one part of the state I say in every part of the state," Creigh said, explaining, for example, that he is willing to tell people in Southwest Virginia that for there to be transportation infrastructure improvements there, that those folks need to support road building in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.
Legally, Creigh said, a commonwealth is no different than a state. "But it's a wonderful metaphor for our common condition," he said.
As widely reported, Huckabee told a crown in Tazewell County that people in Northern Virginia think differently than they do ("I don't even know what that means," Creigh said), and that Northern Virginians don't know what it is like to have to "put a paycheck together."
Creigh likened Huckabee's ridiculous comments to those this past summer, when a John McCain supporter said the folks up in Northern Virginia who supported Barack Obama were not real Virginians.
Huckabee's foot-in-mouth episode also brings to mind George Allen's "Macaca Moment."
"We can't let Republicans pit Virginians against one another," Creigh said, noting that there are signs of economic distress, whether lost jobs, foreclosures or rising healthcare costs, that stretch across the Commonwealth. Times are tough all over.
"Bob McDonnell doesn't understand we are one Commonwealth," Creigh added. "We are all bound together. That's the only way it works."
Creigh further said "This [kind of attitude] sets us back," and it explains why Richmond can't accomplish anything, specifically citing the regional conflicts over transportation that have prevented Virginia from addressing this critical issue.
"What I say in one part of the state I say in every part of the state," Creigh said, explaining, for example, that he is willing to tell people in Southwest Virginia that for there to be transportation infrastructure improvements there, that those folks need to support road building in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.
Legally, Creigh said, a commonwealth is no different than a state. "But it's a wonderful metaphor for our common condition," he said.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Well, so much for Huckabee helping McDonnell
I agree with Lowell, this is outrageous.
I'm not sure it amounts to a proverbial Macaca moment for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the offensive utterance is not coming from the candidate himself, and the utterence itself is not racially offensive as it is representative of an ignorant attitude, especially this insult thrown at many of my friends in Northern Virginia:
"And they have never fully understood how hard it is for a lot of people to put a paycheck together."
Is he friggin' kidding me. Yes, many folks up there are professionals who make good money. They work damn hard for it. The busted their butts in colleges, law schools, medical school and other graduate schools. They busted their butts doing scut level work for years in law firms and government offices, and then, when they finally made it, they got the reward of stressful jobs that require 70-80 hours a week. Just un-friggin' believeable.
This signals that Bob McDonnell plans on running a campaign of class warfare and division in the Commonwealth. It won't work.
In that sense, maybe this is a "macaca" moment. For George Allen, it spelled a specific point in time when the divisive politics of race -- of the real Virginia vs. some vague and menacing "other" failed the GOP. This may turn out to be another watershed moment when the Commonwealth, as a whole, turns its back on this sort of divisive argument.
H/T to NLS
I'm not sure it amounts to a proverbial Macaca moment for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the offensive utterance is not coming from the candidate himself, and the utterence itself is not racially offensive as it is representative of an ignorant attitude, especially this insult thrown at many of my friends in Northern Virginia:
"And they have never fully understood how hard it is for a lot of people to put a paycheck together."
Is he friggin' kidding me. Yes, many folks up there are professionals who make good money. They work damn hard for it. The busted their butts in colleges, law schools, medical school and other graduate schools. They busted their butts doing scut level work for years in law firms and government offices, and then, when they finally made it, they got the reward of stressful jobs that require 70-80 hours a week. Just un-friggin' believeable.
This signals that Bob McDonnell plans on running a campaign of class warfare and division in the Commonwealth. It won't work.
In that sense, maybe this is a "macaca" moment. For George Allen, it spelled a specific point in time when the divisive politics of race -- of the real Virginia vs. some vague and menacing "other" failed the GOP. This may turn out to be another watershed moment when the Commonwealth, as a whole, turns its back on this sort of divisive argument.
H/T to NLS
Meet Bradley Rees
Today, I learned about a gentleman down in Lynchburg named Bradley Rees, who aims to replace Tom Perriello as the Congressman from the Fifth District. Indeed, the other day, Mr. Rees called my friend, Drew Lumpkin, who runs one of the most civil, intelligent and interesting blogs around, Dem Bones, well, he called him a "rabble rouser."
Drew may be a “thoughtful theologian,” but he’s no “rabble rouser.”
Fighting words.
What’s more, Rees has been writing critical stuff about Congressman Perriello. Now, I happen to think Tom Perriello is one of the truly decent, ethical people in public life.
I was mad.
So, I sat down this evening with the intention of doing some research to utterly trash this clown.
Unfortunately, I came away unable to do it. In fact, I came away from it all kinda liking the guy, even wanting to meet him.
Don't get me wrong - he's flaky, but in this he seems more eccentric and interesting than anything else. And I’ve no doubt that in his misguided, if sincere way, he means well. What’s more, at least based on what I could learn from him in the Internets, he seems like a decent guy, a good family man, and a loving dad who posted a poem he wrote to his daughter on the web and captioned the accompanying photo of her, "My Princess." Indeed, the poem is an acrostic, something they make kids do in the fifth grade (where the first letters of each line spell your name) …. I’m sorry… I’m getting a little misty writing this…
So, please, meet Bradley Rees.
Anyway, politically, Rees describes himself as an “Ayn Rand Objectivist Libertarian/Conservative,” which is … well, I spent an hour researching this, and I couldn’t completely figure it out what it was, except that is somewhat contradictory, like being a Jewish Muslim.
But what’s more, Rees plans on challenging Virgil Goode for the Republican Party nod to run against Rep. Perriello in the Fighting Fifth, and if he doesn’t win, he plans on launching a third party candidacy, perhaps under the American Constitution Party ticket, to challenge both.
Here’s Rees, by the way (photo by Mrs. Bradley Rees):
His web site, the awesomely named SonofLiberty2K10, is one of the few web sites I have bothered to read that can fairly be called a ”Manifesto.” Mr. Rees sets out his political philosophy in detail, and explains the observations, events, and thought-processes that brought him to where he is.
For example, in a post entitled, “Why Am I A Libertarian? Read On,” he details the top 10 travesties of both Republicans and Democrats (20 travesties in all) to explain why he is not a member of either party.
In some places, he shines with unassailable logic. For example, #10 on the Democratic list is that Democrats “stood in staunch opposition to Abraham Lincoln,” while #10 on the Republican side is that it was “the party of Lincoln.”
The GOP’s # 10 reason also faults it for committing “egregious violations of the 1st Amendment (the Alien and Sedition Acts).” Of course, the Republican Party was founded in 1854, and the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed in 1798, so the GOP ought to get some points for time traveling ability.
Similarly, the #6 reason why he’s not a Democrat is because Democrats “grossly mishandled the Cold War with tragic incidents like the Bay of Pigs, which may have directly led to the Cuban missile crisis and Kruschev’s notorious shoe-banging diatribe.” Thus, Russians, too, have time traveling abilities, since Kruschey was alleged to have banged his show at the U.N. on October 13, 1960, while the Bay of Pigs occurred in April, 1961. Rees may have proved that Russians and Republicans are closer than we think. Hmmmm.
And like many people who profess a special kinship to the Constitution, Mr. Rees isn’t really sure what’s in there. In one post, he states:
Of course, last time I checked my Constitution it didn’t contain the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which is the phrase to which Mr. Rees is alluding, either. That phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence.
But, as Mr. Rees says, “he is “not a lawyer,” which he touts as a rationale to vote for him.
And, anyway, these kinds of errors are nitpicking. Forget it. He’s rolling:
Mr. Rees, I wish you’d stop criticizing Congressman Perriello so much. He is a good and honest congressman trying to do the right thing, and he is good for our District, even if I don’t agree with him on everything. Some of your criticisms seem strained, like you're trying just a little too hard to find fault.
The Virginia Democrat is dedicated to electing Progressives, not Ayn Rand Objectivist Libertarian/Conservatives, so we can't endorse you. But in the spirit of pluralism, and with an abiding belief in American Constitutionalism, even if we interpret that differently than do you, we nonetheless salute you for putting yourself out there, caring and participating constructively in the political process. We hope you give Virgil a run for his money.
Drew may be a “thoughtful theologian,” but he’s no “rabble rouser.”
Fighting words.
What’s more, Rees has been writing critical stuff about Congressman Perriello. Now, I happen to think Tom Perriello is one of the truly decent, ethical people in public life.
I was mad.
So, I sat down this evening with the intention of doing some research to utterly trash this clown.
Unfortunately, I came away unable to do it. In fact, I came away from it all kinda liking the guy, even wanting to meet him.
Don't get me wrong - he's flaky, but in this he seems more eccentric and interesting than anything else. And I’ve no doubt that in his misguided, if sincere way, he means well. What’s more, at least based on what I could learn from him in the Internets, he seems like a decent guy, a good family man, and a loving dad who posted a poem he wrote to his daughter on the web and captioned the accompanying photo of her, "My Princess." Indeed, the poem is an acrostic, something they make kids do in the fifth grade (where the first letters of each line spell your name) …. I’m sorry… I’m getting a little misty writing this…
So, please, meet Bradley Rees.
Anyway, politically, Rees describes himself as an “Ayn Rand Objectivist Libertarian/Conservative,” which is … well, I spent an hour researching this, and I couldn’t completely figure it out what it was, except that is somewhat contradictory, like being a Jewish Muslim.
But what’s more, Rees plans on challenging Virgil Goode for the Republican Party nod to run against Rep. Perriello in the Fighting Fifth, and if he doesn’t win, he plans on launching a third party candidacy, perhaps under the American Constitution Party ticket, to challenge both.
Here’s Rees, by the way (photo by Mrs. Bradley Rees):
His web site, the awesomely named SonofLiberty2K10, is one of the few web sites I have bothered to read that can fairly be called a ”Manifesto.” Mr. Rees sets out his political philosophy in detail, and explains the observations, events, and thought-processes that brought him to where he is.
For example, in a post entitled, “Why Am I A Libertarian? Read On,” he details the top 10 travesties of both Republicans and Democrats (20 travesties in all) to explain why he is not a member of either party.
In some places, he shines with unassailable logic. For example, #10 on the Democratic list is that Democrats “stood in staunch opposition to Abraham Lincoln,” while #10 on the Republican side is that it was “the party of Lincoln.”
The GOP’s # 10 reason also faults it for committing “egregious violations of the 1st Amendment (the Alien and Sedition Acts).” Of course, the Republican Party was founded in 1854, and the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed in 1798, so the GOP ought to get some points for time traveling ability.
Similarly, the #6 reason why he’s not a Democrat is because Democrats “grossly mishandled the Cold War with tragic incidents like the Bay of Pigs, which may have directly led to the Cuban missile crisis and Kruschev’s notorious shoe-banging diatribe.” Thus, Russians, too, have time traveling abilities, since Kruschey was alleged to have banged his show at the U.N. on October 13, 1960, while the Bay of Pigs occurred in April, 1961. Rees may have proved that Russians and Republicans are closer than we think. Hmmmm.
And like many people who profess a special kinship to the Constitution, Mr. Rees isn’t really sure what’s in there. In one post, he states:
Last time I checked, the Constitution didn’t say “life, liberty, and the pursuit of having lawyers making laws to benefit lawyers.” But that’s what we have (although the “liberty” part has been trampled on a bit).
Of course, last time I checked my Constitution it didn’t contain the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” which is the phrase to which Mr. Rees is alluding, either. That phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence.
But, as Mr. Rees says, “he is “not a lawyer,” which he touts as a rationale to vote for him.
And, anyway, these kinds of errors are nitpicking. Forget it. He’s rolling:
Mr. Rees, I wish you’d stop criticizing Congressman Perriello so much. He is a good and honest congressman trying to do the right thing, and he is good for our District, even if I don’t agree with him on everything. Some of your criticisms seem strained, like you're trying just a little too hard to find fault.
The Virginia Democrat is dedicated to electing Progressives, not Ayn Rand Objectivist Libertarian/Conservatives, so we can't endorse you. But in the spirit of pluralism, and with an abiding belief in American Constitutionalism, even if we interpret that differently than do you, we nonetheless salute you for putting yourself out there, caring and participating constructively in the political process. We hope you give Virgil a run for his money.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Virginia Gov. Polling Trends Show Deeds Gaining Ground
Cross-posted to Daily Kos
Well, I’ve had some time to look at the latest PPP poll, and the fact is that it holds the best news for …. wait for it …. Creigh Deeds!
I know I’m in the tank for Creigh and therefore biased, but hear me out on this one.
I have had, and still have, my doubts about the PPP poll for a few reasons (and I say this as someone who knows little about the science of polling). I don’t like their methodology of responding by pressing telephone buttons. I’m not convinced that their respondent dispersion across telephone area codes accurately reflects the Old Dominion’s Democratic voting population, and I fear that it may, ever so slightly, overweight NoVA and Hampton Roads while underweighting Richmond and rural Virginia. Lastly, apropos of nothing, PPP is from North Carolina, and what can I say, it bugs me that a North Carolina polling firm is encroaching on a Virginia election.
Some of these weaknesses can be seen in the data. For example, Republicans gave Brian Moran a Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure rating of 46/0/54. That is simply not believable or meaningful.
But all those complaints aside, for all of its flaws this is the third poll this organization has provided (Feb.3, March 3 and March 30), and since it is using the same methodology each time, its trends are arguably revealing, even if it usefulness as an accurate snapshot is not. And it is those trends that clearly show the race, while still firmly up in the air, is going Creigh’s way.
The Favorable/Unfavorable Spread
On Feb.3, the following percentage of respondents had no opinion on the candidates, respectively:
Deeds: 67
Moran: 57
McAuliffe: 47
Thus, Deeds was the least known of the three by a wide margin. In the most recent poll, from March 30, those percentages had been reduced as follows:
Deeds: 57
Moran: 51
McAuliffe: 39
Deeds is still the least known, but not by the same margin. Indeed, 10% of respondents had formed an opinion of him over the last 60 days; 6% of respondents for Brian Moran, and 8% for Terry Mcauliffe.
So, how is each candidate doing among these most recent deciders. We can evaluate that by comparing the Favorable/Unfavorable from Feb. 3 to those of March 30.
Here are the Feb. 3 results (followed by the spread):
Deeds: 23/11 +12
Moran: 34/10 +24
McAuliffie 30/23 +7
Here are the Favorable/Unfavorable results from March 30 (again, followed by the spread):
Deeds: 31/12 +19
Moran: 34/15 +19
McAuliffe 32/29 +3
See what is happening. As voters are making up their minds on the candidates, both Moran and McAuliffe are going backwards, while Deeds is surging ahead. Of course, polls are not quite so neat, but here is one way to look at it from a macro level: of the respondents who made up their mind about Deeds between Feb. 3 and March 30, 80% came away with a favorable impression of Creigh, while only 10% did not (the rest, presumably, lost to the God of Rounding).
Of the voters who formed an opinion about Brian Moran, however, some 85% formed a negative opinion of him, with 0% forming a positive one (again, rounding with the law of small numbers accounting for the discrepancy). As for McAuliffe, 75% of the voters who reached an opinion came to an unfavorable opinion about him, while only 25% came to a favorable opinion.
Ok, But What About The Horse Race?
Looking at the absolute numbers from the most recent poll (March 30), Brian Moran declared victory for this round of polling, justified because he pulled ahead of Terry Mcauliffe:
Moran: 22
McAuliffe: 18
Deeds: 15
Undecided: 45
Here is how they polled March 3:
Moran: 19
McAuliffe: 21
Deeds: 14
Undecided: 46
But take a look at how they polled Feb. 3:
Moran: 18
McAuliffe: 18
Deeds: 11
Undecided: 53
From early March to late March, McAuliffe and Moran exchanged supporters, but undecideds did not budge. There was a movement from undecided respondents from February through March, with at a clear plurality arguably settling with Creigh.
In this respect, these numbers support the clear Favorable/Unfavorable findings, above, that this race is moving, slowly but surely, Creigh’s way, although that said, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from this set of data.
When looking at the March 30 results, however, several anecdotal factors jump out that suggest this poll may be overestimating support for both McAuliffe and Moran, and thus underestimating support for Creigh:
- In the 276 area code, which is Southwest Virginia, the most rural part of the state and a natural Deeds constituency, McAuliffe is pulling an astounding 19% (see below for a possible explanation of this).
- In 703 AC (28% or respondents), which is Northern Virginia and Moran’s strongest territory, only 32% are undecided. In comparison, 68% are undecided in 276 AC, 47% in 434 AC and 39% in 540 AC, all three area that are rural in nature (representing 32% of respondents) and more likely to lean towards Creigh. In other words, Creigh has greater potential in his strongholds than Moran has in his.
- The 757 and 804 area codes, representing Hampton Roads and Richmond, respectively, are harder to decipher, at least to the extent that no candidate lays a natural geographic claim to those areas by virtue of demographic identification. But, again, Deeds owns the most attractive Favorable/Unfavorable split in those area codes.
So, What Might Be Happening?
Brian Moran was fast out of the gate in this contest, even though Creigh was the first to declare. Early on, Moran set up the more extensive organization, raised the most money, paid the most consultants and concentrated on gathering the most endorsements. Much of his support developed and coalesced early in the race.
McAuliffe came into the race like gangbusters, with a lot of money and personality to spare, not to mention national media connections that got him a lot of press and a ready base of support among Hillary Clinton supporters (perhaps explaining that 19% in the 276 area code).
For the first 45 days of the year, Creigh was in Richmond, somewhat invisible, doing the job he was elected to do, representing the people of his district in the General Assembly. Brian Moran, of course, famously resigned his seat just before the session began so he could campaign and fundraise during the session, and Terry McAuliffe has never held public office. So Creigh was a bit late from the starting gate, in terms of exposure, campaigning, fundraising and organization.
Moran and McAuliffe have been out there for a while, and Democrats remained undecided. Now, slowly, but surely, Creigh has been catching up, and as he does, and as Democratic voters are taking a closer look, they seem to be liking what they see and gravitating toward him.
As far as trends go, Newton's Laws of Motion applies. A candidate in motion will continue in motion until something stops him.
Well, I’ve had some time to look at the latest PPP poll, and the fact is that it holds the best news for …. wait for it …. Creigh Deeds!
I know I’m in the tank for Creigh and therefore biased, but hear me out on this one.
I have had, and still have, my doubts about the PPP poll for a few reasons (and I say this as someone who knows little about the science of polling). I don’t like their methodology of responding by pressing telephone buttons. I’m not convinced that their respondent dispersion across telephone area codes accurately reflects the Old Dominion’s Democratic voting population, and I fear that it may, ever so slightly, overweight NoVA and Hampton Roads while underweighting Richmond and rural Virginia. Lastly, apropos of nothing, PPP is from North Carolina, and what can I say, it bugs me that a North Carolina polling firm is encroaching on a Virginia election.
Some of these weaknesses can be seen in the data. For example, Republicans gave Brian Moran a Favorable/Unfavorable/Not Sure rating of 46/0/54. That is simply not believable or meaningful.
But all those complaints aside, for all of its flaws this is the third poll this organization has provided (Feb.3, March 3 and March 30), and since it is using the same methodology each time, its trends are arguably revealing, even if it usefulness as an accurate snapshot is not. And it is those trends that clearly show the race, while still firmly up in the air, is going Creigh’s way.
The Favorable/Unfavorable Spread
On Feb.3, the following percentage of respondents had no opinion on the candidates, respectively:
Deeds: 67
Moran: 57
McAuliffe: 47
Thus, Deeds was the least known of the three by a wide margin. In the most recent poll, from March 30, those percentages had been reduced as follows:
Deeds: 57
Moran: 51
McAuliffe: 39
Deeds is still the least known, but not by the same margin. Indeed, 10% of respondents had formed an opinion of him over the last 60 days; 6% of respondents for Brian Moran, and 8% for Terry Mcauliffe.
So, how is each candidate doing among these most recent deciders. We can evaluate that by comparing the Favorable/Unfavorable from Feb. 3 to those of March 30.
Here are the Feb. 3 results (followed by the spread):
Deeds: 23/11 +12
Moran: 34/10 +24
McAuliffie 30/23 +7
Here are the Favorable/Unfavorable results from March 30 (again, followed by the spread):
Deeds: 31/12 +19
Moran: 34/15 +19
McAuliffe 32/29 +3
See what is happening. As voters are making up their minds on the candidates, both Moran and McAuliffe are going backwards, while Deeds is surging ahead. Of course, polls are not quite so neat, but here is one way to look at it from a macro level: of the respondents who made up their mind about Deeds between Feb. 3 and March 30, 80% came away with a favorable impression of Creigh, while only 10% did not (the rest, presumably, lost to the God of Rounding).
Of the voters who formed an opinion about Brian Moran, however, some 85% formed a negative opinion of him, with 0% forming a positive one (again, rounding with the law of small numbers accounting for the discrepancy). As for McAuliffe, 75% of the voters who reached an opinion came to an unfavorable opinion about him, while only 25% came to a favorable opinion.
Ok, But What About The Horse Race?
Looking at the absolute numbers from the most recent poll (March 30), Brian Moran declared victory for this round of polling, justified because he pulled ahead of Terry Mcauliffe:
Moran: 22
McAuliffe: 18
Deeds: 15
Undecided: 45
Here is how they polled March 3:
Moran: 19
McAuliffe: 21
Deeds: 14
Undecided: 46
But take a look at how they polled Feb. 3:
Moran: 18
McAuliffe: 18
Deeds: 11
Undecided: 53
From early March to late March, McAuliffe and Moran exchanged supporters, but undecideds did not budge. There was a movement from undecided respondents from February through March, with at a clear plurality arguably settling with Creigh.
In this respect, these numbers support the clear Favorable/Unfavorable findings, above, that this race is moving, slowly but surely, Creigh’s way, although that said, it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from this set of data.
When looking at the March 30 results, however, several anecdotal factors jump out that suggest this poll may be overestimating support for both McAuliffe and Moran, and thus underestimating support for Creigh:
- In the 276 area code, which is Southwest Virginia, the most rural part of the state and a natural Deeds constituency, McAuliffe is pulling an astounding 19% (see below for a possible explanation of this).
- In 703 AC (28% or respondents), which is Northern Virginia and Moran’s strongest territory, only 32% are undecided. In comparison, 68% are undecided in 276 AC, 47% in 434 AC and 39% in 540 AC, all three area that are rural in nature (representing 32% of respondents) and more likely to lean towards Creigh. In other words, Creigh has greater potential in his strongholds than Moran has in his.
- The 757 and 804 area codes, representing Hampton Roads and Richmond, respectively, are harder to decipher, at least to the extent that no candidate lays a natural geographic claim to those areas by virtue of demographic identification. But, again, Deeds owns the most attractive Favorable/Unfavorable split in those area codes.
So, What Might Be Happening?
Brian Moran was fast out of the gate in this contest, even though Creigh was the first to declare. Early on, Moran set up the more extensive organization, raised the most money, paid the most consultants and concentrated on gathering the most endorsements. Much of his support developed and coalesced early in the race.
McAuliffe came into the race like gangbusters, with a lot of money and personality to spare, not to mention national media connections that got him a lot of press and a ready base of support among Hillary Clinton supporters (perhaps explaining that 19% in the 276 area code).
For the first 45 days of the year, Creigh was in Richmond, somewhat invisible, doing the job he was elected to do, representing the people of his district in the General Assembly. Brian Moran, of course, famously resigned his seat just before the session began so he could campaign and fundraise during the session, and Terry McAuliffe has never held public office. So Creigh was a bit late from the starting gate, in terms of exposure, campaigning, fundraising and organization.
Moran and McAuliffe have been out there for a while, and Democrats remained undecided. Now, slowly, but surely, Creigh has been catching up, and as he does, and as Democratic voters are taking a closer look, they seem to be liking what they see and gravitating toward him.
As far as trends go, Newton's Laws of Motion applies. A candidate in motion will continue in motion until something stops him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
