McDonnell Position on Opt Out Now Poses Real Danger to Virginia

Now that it looks as though the U.S. Congress is going to pass health care reform with a public option that will include an opt out provision for individual states, the stakes are higher in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, and it is worthwhile to examine the respective positions of each candidate on this critical issue.

While it is true that Creigh’s position on this – when asked about it hypothetically, he said he would look at what was passed and make a decision on whether to opt out based on whether it was good for Virginia – is less that I would like, Bob McDonnell’s position – a blanket promise that under his leadership Virginia would opt out of any public option – was irrational.

In the absract, I suppose, this was merely yet another case of ideology trumping facts and common sense when it comes to Bob McDonnell’s worldview. Take a look at McDonnell’s views on the environment, where he has politically declared off shore drilling environmentally safe despite much conflicting evidence, or on transportation, where he has put any new revenue source off limits despite abundant evidence that it will be necessary, or on climate change, where he has simply refused to recognize the irrefutable science.

Bob McDonnell might not be a member of the Flat Earth Society, but he is damn close.

Still, on each of these issues, the consequences to average citizens of McDonnell’s ideological positions seems speculative or remote. It’s tough for folks in, say, Charlottesville to appreciate how they will be hurt by off-shore drilling, and even the consequences of climate change seem like science fiction to most people. Furthermore, the negative effects of all of these will likely be gradual, so people will have the opportunity to adapt and time goes on.

Perhaps a few weeks ago, given the uncertainty of health care reform in Congress, the hypothetical opt out issue debate between Creigh and McDonnell was similar -- fodder for debate among policy wonks and political nerds, but no immediate practical consequence for Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public.

Given Sen. Reid’s comments yesterday, however, that is no longer the case. A public option with an opt out for states looks more probable today than two weeks ago, and so the candidates’ positions on this critical issue is more significant than it was.

And in light of that, Bob McDonnell’s position has gone from merely irrational to irresponsible, if not disqualifying him from the office he seeks.

Here’s why.

As far as Bob McDonnell is concerned, it doesn’t matter whether the public option would ultimately be good or bad for Virginians. He will just opt out.

But in this issue, lives are at stake, literally, and there is nothing abstract about that. At the very least, Virginia deserves a Governor who will honestly and intelligently evaluate the facts in front of him and come to a reasonable and considered decision, not simply be driven by an ideology, no matter how sincerely believed, that government is bad.

Evaluating the facts, the benefits versus the liabilities, is exactly what Creigh says he will do. It is exactly what Virginia needs.

It is, also, the exactly what Bob McDonnell says he will not do. He has made his decision, facts be damned.

Look, I don’t think McDonnell is callous or doesn’t care about people. I do think, however, he is a prisoner of an ideology from which he cannot break loose, and that it leads to ill-considered decisions that have serious consequences, intended or not.

I am amazed how, in light of this, any reasonably informed Virginian can cast a vote for Bob McDonnell.

Hey, Virginia: WAKE UP!

A while back, I wrote a post about how Bob McDonnell’s gubernatorial campaign resembled that of George W. Bush’s for president in 2000, in the sense that in each case the candidate’s success in the media and polls seemed to be based more on the perception that he was a good guy rather than a meaningful assessment of what kind of chief executive he would make, based on an analysis of their lifelong records and the substance of their political positions.

In retrospect, of course, it was all too clear by the Fall of 2000, or should have been all to clear to any reasonable person, that if elected that George W. Bush would fubar the country as badly as he did.

I’ll leave it to historians and the many millions of people smarter and more astute than I to analyze exactly what happened and why during the Bush presidency, but long before he became president, George W. Bush had a clear record of incompetence and failure in virtually everything he had attempted as an adult.

Why on Earth was anyone surprised when he turned out to be a failure as President also, leaving the rest of us to grapple with the insecurity, fear and difficulty of living through the worst economy since the Great Depression

So, what do we learn about Bob McDonnell from this?

More than anything else, Bob McDonnell’s past tells us that the most lasting historical legacy of his administration, should he be elected, will probably be the implementation of extremist social policies. Bob McDonnell has always been, and still is, first and foremost a culture warrior.

Need proof? A day after suggesting at a debate that he would not focus on pursuing his conservative social agenda were he elected governor, but would focus on jobs and the economy, Mr. McDonnell gave a speech at Liberty University where, perhaps feeling confident of victory on Nov. 3, he let his guard down and, to loud cheering, defiantly asserted that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that as governor he will tirelessly protect the unborn.

(BTW, lets none of us get into an argument over semantics and pretend that we don’t know what Mr. McDonnell means, i.e., that gay people will burn for all eternity in Hell on account of their deviant sexual practices and that official government discrimination against such people is not only acceptable, it is encouraged. Indeed, Bob McDonnell pursued this exact policy, to the extent he could, as Attorney General. As for abortion, I suspect we will see some of the strictest limitations in the U.S., especially if Ken Cuccinelli is Attorney General. Why would anyone think that two politicians who have spent their entire public lives espousing extreme pro-life positions would finally get into office and not act in a manner consistent with the tenets that have guided them their entire lives? Does that make sense to anyone?)

Mr. McDonnell has praised the economic record and policies of George W. Bush and suggested he would follow a similar policy, were he elected Governor – presumably, tax cuts for the wealthy, reducing government regulation of the financial sector and generally favoring big business at the expense of workers. In the conservative ideology, it does not matter if these policies produce poor results. Lower taxes and smaller government are the goals themselves, and as an ideological matter, low taxes and less involved government are always virtuous, without regard the actual effect such policies may have on the lives of actual people.

Lowell at Blue Virginia has a great post up about looking to California as a predictor of what Virginia might look like as a result of a McDonnell administration following such economic policies:

If Virginia elects [McDonnell], they can look to California as an example of what happens when conservative "starve the beast" economics meets a transitioning 21st century economy: start with gross, across the board underinvestment in public education, from pre-K to city colleges & public universities. Pile on deficits because the government needs to spend on is going to be debt-financed. Watch wages stagnate and unemployment climb even in up business cycles, and then shoot up when the business cycle goes flat, because all the tax cuts and resulting mountains of debt prevent counter-cyclical public sector spending. Don't forge the massive, always-growing inequality (and the resulting increases in political polarization) because the tax cuts are always somehow tilted towards either rich individuals or corporations, or both.

So, when I hear people say they are not excited about voting for Creigh, or that there is an enthusiasm gap, or that they just won’t vote, I just want to tell them to think about it this way:

When you vote, it is not for the sake of the politicians running for office, it is for your own sake.

Get out and vote for Creigh. Not for Creigh’s benefit, but for your own sake.

If Creigh is going to win this race, it will not be because of some magical canvassing or phone-banking operation that we haven’t yet seen;

If Creigh is going to win this race, it won’t be because he is suddenly going to become a smooth orator;

If Creigh is going to win this race, it won’t be because he will suddenly adopt the kinds of Progressive positions that many on the left would like to see;

And if Creigh is going to win this race, it won’t be because the mass of low-information voters out there who are getting their news from the MSM and who are tilting this race McDonnell’s way are suddenly going to get a new flood of information to change their minds.

Creigh will win this race because each of us on our own will have taken it upon ourselves to get out and vote, to get our friends and family out to vote.

It will be because each of is taking personal responsibility for the future of the Commonwealth.

The votes are out there.

Here’s a simple idea. Send an e-mails to five friends today who are not politically involved, and remind them how important it is to vote for Creigh.

Or the Virginia we have begun to take for granted, one that is moving in a inexorably positive and progressive direction, may be no more.

Bob McDonnell: Invisible With No Secrets to Conceal

The Washington Post’s endorsement of Creigh this morning (see Hokie Guru's post here) hits the nail right on the head when it comes to articulating why Creigh is the clearly superior choice to Bob McDonnell to be our next governor.

While I don’t typically subscribe to the notion that newspaper editorials make a huge difference in voters’ decisions – voters have a nasty habit for reaching their own decisions for their own reasons – I think this one will resonate for the remainder of the campaign and make a huge difference.

Not because the WaPo chose to endorse Creigh over McDonnell – that was expected – but because while the right-of-center Post editorial board tried to argue that its differences with Bob McDonnell “are on questions of policy,” they are barely able to hide the clear disdain they feel for the GOP candidate and the campaign he has run.

Consider the following characterizations of McDonnell from the editorial:

-- “Mr. McDonnell has staked out the intolerant terrain on his party's right wing[.]

-- “Mr. McDonnell lacks … political spine[.]”

-- “Mr. McDonnell … remains in denial.”

-- “Virginians should not confuse Mr. McDonnell's adept oratory for wisdom[.]”

And, of course, the worst cut of all:

-- “He is a dexterous politician.”

As this race has wound down to its final weeks, the question hanging heavy in the air for Democrats is whether Creigh can win it, in light of the numerous polls showing McDonnell beating him. The state’s Republicans are already filling Cabinet posts.

They should wait.

I’m not interested in arguing about the methodologies or results of these polls, and I don’t quibble that their internals are consistent with the overall results, although I would argue that this consistency is derived from the potential flaw all these polls share.

The question surrounding these polls is the extent to which their likely voter screens are accurately predicting who will show up on Election Day. In that regard, these polls do not so much show a persuadable electorate that is choosing McDonnell over Creigh as much as they suggest an electorate that has been stacked against Creigh from the start.

On the one hand, these polls may be accurate gauging an electorate ready to turn on Democrats as a result of various political and social forces largely beyond the control of either candidate in the race, and capturing the vicissitudes of the national discussion and political scene.

But given Virginia’s recent electoral history demonstrating a clear trend towards Democrats (even discounting 2008 as an once-in-a-lifetime election), and the circumstances of this specific race, the evidence suggests that that these polls are wrong because they are flying in the face of common sense.

It is not that I am unaware that many of my fellow Virginians simply see the issues and candidates from a different, more conservative perspective, than I do. There are loyal Republicans and Conservative ideologues that would vote for McDonnell even if it were proved he regularly engaged in bestiality.

I don’t even argue with Republicans comprising a larger share of likely voters than Democrats, even though this is not consistent with the trend either in Virginia or nationally, to the extent that this denotes some sort of enthusiasm gap.

Rather, it is the dominance McDonnell is showing in these polls among self-described Independents – even Conservative-leaning ones – that simply doesn’t track with the facts of the race, or the reality of each candidate so adeptly captured today by the Washington Post.

According to the Post, McDonnell has run “a disciplined, focused, policy-oriented campaign.” Perhaps. But as the Post makes clear, he has also run a dishonest and cowardly campaign.

I think it is hard for voters, confronted with this, to admit that it is really happening. Can any even slightly informed person actually believe Bob McDonnell is a moderate on the issue of choice or gay rights, as he pretends to be?

I have faith that when presented with the facts, independent-minded voters will make the right decisions. On issue after issue – transportation, education, the environment, the right to choose, anti-gay discrimination – analysis of the candidates’ positions and records demonstrate that Bob McDonnell will be a disaster for Virginia.

That is the fundamental issue in this race. And it is because the Post editorial so clearly explains this truth that it will resonate across the Commonwealth.

Obama and Deeds - The Ties That Bind

As I have watched polls over the summer in the gubernatorial contest, I have been mildly concerned given how bad Creigh seemed to be doing. Unlike some others, I didn’t dismiss the polls or their methodology, although at the same time given how early they were, I didn’t think they were at all predictive of what would happen in the election.

The real question I had was what were these polls measuring? Their lopsided and counter intuitive results, IMHO, were attributable not to the specific candidates, but rather to three environmental aspects of the political landscape this past summer that were all lined up against Creigh.

Two of those factors, however, now appear to be moving in Creigh’s direction, and the third may as well. All else being equal, I wouldn’t be surprised to soon see polls showing McDonnell losing support and Creigh gaining it, leaving both candidates pulling in the mid- to high 40s, solidly within the MoE.

The first factor was that over the summer mainstream Conservatives, teabaggers, and your garden-variety birthers, deathers and racists, not to mention Republican Party regulars, were able to coalesce around opposition to health care reform, pulling in many people who are usually on the periphery or outside of political battles into the fray. The result was a temporary and intense spike in enthusiasm among these groups, who were united in their opposition to both the President and the Democratic Party, and their need for Prozac.

These groups, given their pack dog mentality, were further egged on by the President’s insistence on turning the other cheek in the name of bipartisanship, which they saw as a sign of his weakness and their strength. At the same time, the perception among Progressives began to grow that the President would sell out important principles in pursuit of a deal with Republicans, causing many to ask what was the point of elections if, once in office, the people we elect are subservient to the ones we defeated?

Finally, the loud, thuggish tactics of these groups at town halls over the summer drew plenty of media coverage, giving the impression of a tiny, but intense grassroots movement being much larger and more significant than it really was.

As a result of all this, from mid-July into August, Republicans were becoming hyper-energized while Democrats were becoming dispirited. This was clearly reflected in Virginia’s Gubernatorial polling numbers

Consider, in five polls following the primary from mid-June through the end of July, the margin in the gubernatorial race was: +6 Deeds; +4 Deeds; +1 McD; +6 McD; and +3 McD.

Beginning with a SUSA poll from July 27 and 28, however, the margin in the polls shot up to +15 McD, and has since pretty much stayed there, although a couple of polls showed more modest margins of +7 McD and +b McD, better but still outside the MoE.

According to Gallup, meanwhile, over the same time period President Obama’s weekly approval average took a dive. It stood at 62/31 in early June, a spread of 31 points. By the end of July, when Creigh’s numbers began to deteriorate, those figures were at 54/39, with a spread of 15.

Obama kicked ass Wednesday night, although the extent to which he has remade the debate remains to be seen. That will be determined by his actions over the next several weeks.

IF Obama follows through on his tough words –

IF Obama truly calls Republicans out by name for their lies –

IF Obama lays down the law for the Blue Dogs –

IF Obama is one the way to leading Democrats in Congress to genuine health care reform with or without Republicans –

If he does all these things, then Democrats will be fired up. We will believe that elections make a difference, and this will most certainly be reflected in greater and sustained support for Creigh.

If, on the other hand, Obama reverts to previous form, and simply pursues bipartisanship as a goal in and of itself, regardless of the boorish and dishonest behavior of Republicans, Democrats will again become dispirited. At least this one will.

Early indications are mixed. Joe Wilson gave the President, Democrats and proponents of health care reform a gift the other night, but the President tried to give it back. As a result, he again wound up playing Charlie Brown trying to kick the football as some no-name BSC congressman took on the role of Lucy pulling it away. Just has the President was graciously saying how he forgave Joe Wilson after the Congressman’s sincere apology last night, the boorish Wilson was telling reporters that his apology was not sincere at all, but that the leadership forced him to make it. And now he has put out a fundraising video in which he says, “I will not be muzzled.”

The second factor was Creigh’s month-long absence from the campaign trail in July and the manner in which it was handled. This was a tactical error that left Bob McDonnell alone to define himself as a moderate.

Indeed, Creigh’s drop in the polls, while coinciding with the dynamics of the larger health care debate going on nationally, also coincided with his absence from the public eye. Arguably, he could have mitigated his erosion in the polls had he been a more aggressive campaigner during that time.

The result of McDonnell’s efforts, however, can be seen in the most recent SUSA poll, where McDonnell is pulling 42% of the self-described moderate voter, 15% of the self-described liberals, and 31% of self-described pro-choice voters. At the same time, McDonnell is getting 89% of self-described Conservatives. Similarly, McDonnell is attracting 19% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans, not to mention 13% of Obama voters, at the same time he is garnering 90% of McCain voters.

In short, these numbers show McDonnell is attracting considerable support from people diametrically opposed to his positions, without sacrificing any of his base. (I realize that the small samples of these sub-groups call the accuracy of them into question, but the consistency among each group, even accounting for the overlap, suggests it is not simply a case of skewed numbers).

Several weeks ago, Creigh had already begun to address this, using the choice issue to expose McDonnell as the extreme social Conservative that he is when McDonnell’s thesis came along. So far, it has been a game of catch-up for him – between the Democratic primary and Creigh’s lost month, McDonnell has had Virginia’s Independent voters to himself for seven months.

That will change, however, as voters focus more on the race. While the thesis fallout has yet to show up in polls, McDonnell simply has too much of a public record to avoid the issue forever. McDonnell’s ability to conceal the huge gulf between what he really believes and how he has presented himself, will prove increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

The third factor that has been affecting the polls is the exhaustion of Virginia’s Democrats. Beginning in January 2008, the Obama-Clinton primary pitted Democrats against one-another. Following Obama’s nomination, we came together for a few months, but with Virginia being a swing state, the campaign was intense. No sooner did that intense election end that a hard fought, again intense, and a sometimes personally bitter primary campaign took its place. This lasted through June.

To an extent, the joint effect of renewed support for the President and the exposing of Bob McDonnell will counteract this, but it won’t fully address it.

Further, the fact is that Creigh was a compromise winner in the primary who benefited from the three-way dynamic of that race. While he got 50% of the vote, the intensity of his support was behind that of both Moran and McAuliffe; Creigh’s core support was only in the low 20s throughout the entire primary season. Consequently, even leaving aside his folksy, self-effacing campaign style, Creigh is unlikely to be able to rouse Virginia’s Democrats from their malaise alone.

The key here, I believe, is getting the Commonwealth’s party leaders in to stump for Creigh as much as possible. We need Mark Warner. We need Jim Webb. We need the President (and not just for fundraising). And I say let’s get the Big Dog in here, for goodness sakes.

Even with that, however, in the final analysis, it is Creigh and Creigh alone who has to close the sale.

But at least now he is competing on a more hospitable playing field.

How George W. Bush is Bob McDonnell's Role Model

The Deeds campaign issued a presser yesterday in which they refer to Bob McDonnell as “Both Ways Bob.” It is the perfect appellation that captures Mr. McDonnell’s efforts to paint himself as a moderate.

Of greater import for the Commonwealth, however, is how Mr. McDonnell gets away with it. And he is getting away with it.

Yesterday’s presser concerned education, but I have documented other issues in which Mr. McDonnell has successfully cloaked himself in moderate clothing, to wit:

* Mr. McDonnell introduced more than 35 bills while in the General Assembly seeking to restrict, in one way or another, a woman’s right to choose. Now that he is running for governor, he claims all he wants is to seek common ground on the issue of choice. He doesn’t. He is ideologically, philosophically and religiously committed to ending a woman’s right to choose completely.

* As a legislator, Mr. McDonnell tried to block the reappointment of a Virginia Beach judge because she was allegedly gay. As Attorney General, he issued several opinions of questionable legal reasoning all aimed at eliminating or minimizing policies enacted to end discrimination against gay people. Now, he promises he won’t discriminate. Well, okay, we can take him at his word, but first he ought to explain why he apparently condoned discrimination in the past.

* As a legislator, Mr. McDonnell voted to cut funding for the Governor’s Opportunity Fund. Now that he is running for Governor, he says he wants to increase that funding.

* As a gubernatorial candidate, Mr. McDonnell led the fight to urge the General Assembly to refuse $125 million in federal aid to help unemployed workers, mainly to poke a thumb in the eye of President Obama. Now, Mr. McDonnell asserts in his economic plan that he will establish an Economic Stimulus Foundation to identify and secure Federal stimulus funds.

To be fair, I don't think Mr. McDonnell is a liar at heart. Actually, he seems like a decent enough fellow, even if I think some of his ideas are wrongheaded, and that sometimes his dogmatism, especially in areas of social issues, gets the better of his common sense. But on the whole, I am certain that if Mr. McDonnell could win this election by telling the truth about where he stands on issues and squaring it with he record, he not only would, he would prefer to do so.

But Mr. McDonnell knows if he did that, he would lose this election to a true moderate like Creigh.

Politicians at the extreme ends of the political spectrum, on both the left and right, have always had to play what my friend Lowell Feld calls “dog whistle politics.” The bases on which these extremists rely are essential to them, and might occasionally even be enough to win an election at a local level. But on a statewide, or obviously national, level, the trick is to moderate your positions enough to sound palatable to moderates, while still offering sufficient assurances, to your base that you have not really changed your spots typically in the form of code words or symbols that mean one thing to your base, but sound benign enough in everyday usage so as not to frighten moderates.

Mr. McDonnell plays a variation of that. While there is a dog whistle element to Mr. McDonnell’s campaign, he is doing more of a two-step that simply refuses to acknowledge his record.

Pulling this off does not require skill or guile. Indeed, truly skilled politicians, like President Bill Clinton, generally don’t need or practice dog whistle or two-step politics all that much. Rather, they are genuine coalition-builders who rely on their uncanny ability to understand the needs of people from different walks of life, and articulate to them why they will genuinely benefit from a particular policy. That’s not to say they never do it; only that it is not their usual M.O.

Paradoxically, the very skill and effectiveness of leaders like Mr. Clinton in honestly, forthrightly and thoughtfully communicating with citizens leads both his political opponents, and many in the mainstream media, to depict them as slick and untrustworthy. Their inability to detect the BS (because there is none) becomes proof that it is merely being more effectively hidden.

Successfully pulling off dog whistle and two-step politics like Mr. McDonnell has done, however, mainly requires a powerful sense of shamelessness. It requires an ability to stand up day after day and spew forth statements you know are bull, to proudly insist that, no matter what, black is white, up is down and right is left. Trying this would reduce most people to tears, or at least drive them to the solace and safety of their bedrooms to hide under the blankets. I imagine it has been especially tricky this cycle for Conservatives who have had to deal with the increasing influence of Teabaggers and Birthers within the GOP base.

A simple, yet brazen refusal to simply acknowledge obvious truths leaves most reporters scratching their heads. Reporters, of course (or, well, most of them), see and fully understand what the politician is doing, but they are powerless to stop it. First, if reporters tried to debunk all the BS coming from the practitioners of this brand of politics, they would have no time left for doing their assigned jobs of covering events. Batting back even obvious lies is a time-consuming process, sometimes requiring expertise, frequently requiring copious research, explanation and exposition.

What’s worse, even if a reporter does all that, editors often aren’t interested in the stories. The dirty truth is that most reporters and editors have disdain for their readers. They believe that their readership have short attention spans and are not interested, for the most part, in long-form journalism that focuses on issues. That is why our political coverage tends to focus on the simple and trivial. Expose the fact that Bob McDonnell’s economic plan has no substance? No way. Gus Deeds drank a beer at a frat party? Ding, Ding, Ding!

There is a reason one of the most aphoristic of all newsroom aphorisms is, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

McDonnell is good at this kind of politics, but the best I have ever seen at it was George W. Bush. He was completely unperturbed and unaffected by facts and reality (an aide once famously said in the wake of 9/11, “We create our own reality”), and for five years the media could not lay a glove on him (and yes, some fell down on the job, but many didn’t).

As a businessman, for example, Mr. Bush failed at virtually everything he tried. That he came out of these failures a financial success was due to rescues by his father. When you’re President, however, there is no safety net, and that the George W. Bush Administration would be marked by incompetence and end in economic disaster should have surprised no one who understood his record.

The event fulcrum for Mr. Bush was Katrina. When the pictures from New Orleans were juxtaposed real time with Mr. Bush’s claims that all was under control, the nation seemed to finally snap out of its daze. By then, however, it was too late to stem the tide; we were in two wars, our international reputation was in tatters, and the irreversible conditions that would inexorably drive our economy literally to the brink of ruin were already in place.

Amazingly, the same scenario seems to be playing out in Virginia. While Mr. McDonnell may present himself as a moderate, he is still an extreme Conservative. Like George W. Bush did to our country, if Mr. McDonnell is elected governor, he will leave the Commonwealth a much different, and in my view significantly less appealing, place than it is today. He is just not telling us that.

Generally, after eight years of Democratic leadership focused on providing better government service to Virginians (sometimes successfully, sometimes not), if Mr. McDonnell becomes governor, cuts in all areas of government service are in the offing. Look for the middle class to be left, for all intents and purposes, to fend for themselves on health care. Look for less funding for public education at all levels. More tax cuts favoring the wealthy? Probably. And expect further limitations on a woman’s right to choose, perhaps the most severe in the nation. Finally, as other states improve the quality of the lives for all their citizens by removing discrimination against rights of homosexuals to marry, adopt, etc., from their books, Virginia will undoubtedly remain in the dark ages on this particular civil rights issue.

Taken together, the thermadorian reaction envisioned for the Commonwealth by Mr. McDonnell is not the kind of place that will attract the highly skilled and educated work force necessary for 21st Century economic development. I think people will be surprised, but just like with George W. Bush, it is there to clearly see in Mr. McDonnell’s record.

In closing, I ask, is there any fair-minded person who doesn’t wish we had taken a harder look at George Bush’s record before elevating him to the Presidency of the United States. Perhaps he would have won anyway, but at least we would have had our eyes open.

GOP Legislators Endorse Creigh

Seven Republican and one Independent legislators from across the Commonwealth endorsed Creigh today.

Endorsements during a campaign are a dime a dozen, and as a general matter, I don't get too worked about them, whether good or bad. When Sheila Johnson came out in favor of Bob McDonnell the other day, it was a big yawn to me.

That said, seven Republicans from the General Assembly crossing party lines to endorse Creigh strikes me as significant for a few reasons.

First, in the hyper-partisan atmosphere of Richmond, cross-party endorsements are not common. More importantly, in this atmosphere these endorsers risk the disfavor of their own party for their actions (as opposed to, say, Johnson, whose "cross-party" endorsement, to the extent she had public status as a Democrat, cost her and her economic interests nothing). In short, this is clearly not a decision these legislators too lightly, or one they took for trivial reasons.

Second, these are people who have worked closely with both Creigh and Mr. McDonnell in Richmond, and had the chance of observing both men in how they conduct themselves in the context of governing. So their endorsement is a knowledgeable one from people with a unique perspective on seeing and evaluating the relative qualifications of Creigh and Mr. McDonnell to serve as Governor.

Finally, these legislators represent a cross section of the Commonwealth geographically, so it is not simply a case of local politicos supporting a favorite son. As you can see from the list below, these legislators represent urban, exurban and rural areas, as well as Southwest Virginia, NoVA and Newport News.

The legislators javascript:void(0)endorsing Creigh are:

Sen. Brandon Bell (R-Roanoke Co.)
Sen. John Chichester (R-Stafford)
Sen. Russ Potts (R-Winchester)
Sen. Marty Williams (R-Newport News)
Sen. Warren E. Berry (R-Fairfax)
Del. Anne G. "Panny" Rhodes (R-Richmond)
Del. Katherine Waddell (I-Richmond)
Del. Jim Dillard (R-Fairfax)

Sounds Like Someone Needs A Diaper Change

Another day, another pointless e-mail from the RPV about Creigh Deeds, once again alleging that Creigh is refusing to take a position on several national issues. The e-mail also makes some juvenile allegations about Creigh and Gov. Kaine that are laughably idiotic and internally inconsistent, for example, both accusing Deeds of “keeping mum” about Kaine’s travels for the DNC and “throwing his mentor under a bus.” He couldn’t have done both now, could he?

More to the point, is this really what the RPV wants to discuss with the voters? If so, why?

I don’t know what they talk about at the McDonnell residence over dinner, but in my house and in my family, we worry about trivialities like, well, keeping my job. We worry about whether our public schools will have enough funding next year to provide a full-time nurse to take care of our diabetic son at school. We worry about the cost of health insurance and, even with insurance, the cost of health care. We worry about paying for college for our three children.

Honestly, in our house we don’t care about where Gov. Kaine goes on behalf of the DNC. We do wonder, however, where the Hell Bob McDonnell, Ken Cuccinelli and the rest of the RPV will be when it comes to serious issues like stem cell research that might help our son? Will they support finding a cure for his diabetes, or will they pander to extremists for whom it is more important to make an ideological debating point than help secure a healthy and long future for a nine-year-old child.

Instead, all we get from the RPV is schoolyard name-calling and taunting. Do they really think this is acceptable?

Actually, I think McDonnell is a pretty smart fellow, so I presume he knows this tactic is pretty lame. In fact, that is what makes the rationale behind this nonsense clear enough.

The truth is that Republicans are out of ideas and have been for some time. The public is no longer buying their snake oil that tax cuts are the panacea for every problem, and unlike the Republican Party’s spiritual and ideological leaders like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michele Bachman, most people, Conservative, Moderate and Liberal, do not see their own government as their enemy, but as their ally in tough times.

Virginians, for the most part, seem to me to be seeking thoughtful, realistic and pragmatic policies to lead us into the future, not childish partisan sniping, but Pat Mullins, Bob McDonnell and the Republicans have nothing to offer but the same old negativity and divisiveness. So Republicans peddle paranoia about the census, they fantasize about a terrorist attack that in their sick imaginations will jumpstart support for their campaign of violence and hatred against immigrants, and here in Virginia, they level irrelevant and pointless charges against their political opponents in order to distract voters.

The RPV’s tactics amount to nothing more than Pat Mullins and Bob McDonnell acting like spoiled brats that no one will listen to, so they are now stomping their feet, crying and holding their breath till they turn blue. And as with watching a toddler throw a temper tantrum, it isn’t fun and it isn’t interesting. As a matter of fact, as anyone who has witnessed such a fit being pitched, more than anything it is an uncomfortable and humiliating experience not only for the child involved, but also for the unfortunate adults unlucky enough to witness the spectacle.

For goodness sakes, will someone please change these guy’s diapers and burp them, if only so they will shut up and let the adults talk to one another.

GOP Strategy Against Deeds is an Admission They Hold Weak Cards

Yesterday, Bob Holsworth at Virginia Tomorrow detailed the GOP playbook against Creigh Deeds for 2009, namely, tie him to Tim Kaine:

Republicans assume that Kaine has little flexibility on issues- his role essentially requires him to defend whatever policies emerge from the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the next four months.

Health care reform. Overdue.

Cap and trade. Farsighted energy policy.

Card check. Leveling the playing field for workers.

Climate Change. Let’s act quickly and decisively.

And whatever Nancy Pelosi comes up with…

Regardless of how warmly these proposals are likely to be received in Virginia.

And the GOP intends to ask Deeds (over and over again) what he thinks about the policies that Kaine has no choice but to defend.

That strategy is somewhat counter-intuitive, as Deeds himself is seeking to tie himself to Gov. Kaine. Still, I get the logic behind what Holsworth says the Republicans are doing, and think it is pretty smart. If the RPV is able to nationalize the election, it could even work-- indeed, it might be their only path to victory.

In any case, Lowell has a post up at Blue Virginia that effectively and convincingly knocks the wind out of a strategy based on tying Deeds to one of the more popular Virginia politicians, on the basis that he is not the most popular. Analyzing a copious amount of poll data amid other convincing arguments, Lowell concludes, “[I]f that’s the best the Republicans got, I’m not too worried.”

More interestingly, the GOP strategy appears to fly in the face of the dynamics and issues that look likely to drive this election, and the adoption of this risky strategy of misdirection at this early stage, whether ultimately successful or not, represents a clear acknowledgement that Republicans in Virginia are holding a weak hand.

It is important at the outset to draw a distinction between the issues that will drive this election within the Commonwealth, and how the rest of the country, and most significantly, our lazy, unoriginal, national media with a tendency toward group think, will report this election.

The 2009 Virginia Gubernatorial race will not be a referendum on Obama or national issues within the Commonwealth, despite the desire of our national chattering class for it to fulfill that role. While the popularity of the President is certainly one factor that may arguably affect the overall attitude of the electorate, if recent history and chatter on the blogs is any guide (and there is reason to believe, despite the refusal of the usual suspects to acknowledge the fact, that the jockeying on the blogs now will successfully divine and, in some measure, define the substantive agenda for the election to some extent) the Deeds-McDonnell contest will, IMHO, be focusing on two broad substantive themes more parochial in nature.

The first, obviously, is the economy and jobs, which will be debated in the specific contexts of transportation, education and energy policy insofar as those issues intersect with economic growth and development. In some ways, this issue benefits Deeds, because addressing the considerable problems Virginia faces and building a foundation for the future will require proactive government action, not exactly the long suit of the party of “no.” On the other hand, the simplistic GOP prescriptions for what ails us, the “drill baby drill” cheer, and the usual cries of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, have appeal in difficult times where the complexity of our economic situation can seem overwhelming, despite the fact that they hold little virtue as actual policies. Still, such mindless ideological drivel is unlikely to gain much traction as long as the memory of George W. Bush is in voters' minds. Folks have had enough of simple sounding bromides that sound good, but leave disaster in their wake.

The second issue theme, less obvious and still to emerge, will be social issues, specifically whether Bob McDonnell's extreme Social Conservatism is out of step with current Virginian attitudes on such issues as choice, civil unions, stem cell research, teaching creationism in schools, etc. If the GOP thinks Deeds will have to answer for Tim Kaine's embrace of the Obama agenda, Bob McDonnell will ultimately have to answer, similarly, for Pat Robertson's social agenda. Indeed, this ties into the economic development issue, as well. Will the industries of the 21st century want to locate in a state dominated by social laws of the 19th century? Would a business dependent on creativity and technology be able to attract the educated, creative employees that will drive entrepreneurship and economic development for the next half century?

I suspect that the RPV is quite nervous about the emergence of this issue. And to think it was just an election cycle or two ago that these were wedge issues that favored Republicans. Ah, America the capitalistic beautiful.

The problem for the GOP is how to prevent political nature from taking its course?

The answer is misdirection to other issues. Those issues, of course, need to be real ones.

Outside Virginia, of course, a different narrative is developing. This narrative suggests that the Gubernatorial election will be a referendum on Barack Obama and Congressional Democratic rule. This meme is appealing to the national press because, after all, there is not a national audience for a discussion of the issues of interest to the Commonwealth’s citizens. As far as Virginia Republicans are concerned, Gov. Kaine, limping as he is to the end of his term, is the perfect vehicle to hitch its wagon to as it careens down the road. Furthermore, there is the possibility that this national meme will, through sheer force of national media saturation, overwhelm the local statewide issues, especially in NoVA where Federal issues tend to have greater traction for obvious reasons.

It is a risky course, however, and one unlikely to work. Virginians tend to be parochial in their concerns. Also, it is not quite clear exactly how closely Deeds has tied himself to Gov. Kaine, without which the GOP's efforts to do so won't work.

It is important to understand what Deeds means when he speaks of “continuing in the Warner-Kaine tradition.” It seems to me that what Sen. Deeds is really talking about here is not adherence to specific policies of his predecessors, although I am sure the three share similar attitudes on most issues, but rather a pragmatic, results-oriented approach to governing.

Again, this plays into the two main local themes that I think will drive the election, and allows Deeds to contrast his reality-based practicality with McDonnell’s inflexible ideologically driven approach.

Just as significantly, it renders any attempt to tie Deeds to policies supported by the national Democrats – Obama, Warner, Webb and Kaine – certain to fall flat. For a variety of tactical reasons unrelated to the substance of the argument, I don’t think Deeds should take the bait and respond to RPV demands that he opine on such Federal issues as card-check or ACES, just because Gov. Kaine holds positions on these issues as head of the DNC. For one thing, Deeds answers to the voters, not to the Republican Party. For another, the GOP has not yet established the relevancy of these issues to the election at hand.

But at some point, Deeds will need to declare his independence from the substance of Kaine, although not from the temperament and governing philosophy of Tim Kaine and Mark Warner. Doing so will be easier than the GOP thinks it will, and once Deeds does that, the GOP may find its quiver is empty, save for the same old arguments that have lost them the last three election cycles.

Is Deeds Painting Himself Into a Corner on Taxes?

The answer, in short, is maybe.

The other night in Lynchburg, Deeds and Bob McDonnell took the stage separately, but at this point in time, as the candidates size each other up, it was as close to a debate as we will get -- at least for the next four weeks.

Here was the lede in the RTD coverage of the event:

Gubernatorial hopefuls R. Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell, in their first back-to-back appearances on the same stage, told Boys State attendees in Lynchburg yesterday that they could improve transportation in Virginia without raising taxes.

Deeds, a Democrat, said he would seek to pay for better roads by promoting business growth that would increase state revenues, but ultimately that growth depends on better roads.

"I have no plan to raise taxes," Deeds said twice.

McDonnell, a Republican, said he'd try to finance roads by "cutting spending on things that are not a priority."

Uh-oh.

I recently wrote about the GOP’s desire to have a debate on taxes with Deeds, saying the Democrats need not fear this debate. I noted the blog Mason Conservative, which wrote, “So yes, please o' please Deeds and Dems, run on who's going to cut taxes and who's not,” and responded as follows:

The problem is that voters will not necessarily frame the question like Mason Conservative does. The salient issue will not be "who's going to cut taxes and who's not." The issues voters will more likely be concerned with are who has a positive agenda for moving the state forward? Who has pragmatic ideas for solving the transportation problems of the state? If my taxes will go up, what will they be used for? Who will level with me about all the facts so I can make an informed decision?

I stand by what I wrote, but if the issue becomes, as Mason Conservative framed it, who will raise taxes and who won’t, Sen. Deeds will lose that argument, if not the election. No Democrat can beat the single-minded refusal of Republicans to acknowledge the legitimacy of any tax.

If voters are going to frame the issue in a favorable manner for Deeds, it will be because Deeds have effectively framed it for them.

Given this, Sen. Deeds engagement on the issue in Lynchburg did not bode well.

“I have no plan to raise taxes” is, for all intents and purposes, engagement on the GOP’s turf. It sets the stage for a discussion over who is more likely to raise taxes.

I understand the tactic -- blow the tax hiker allegation off by simply denying any intent to raise taxes. I'm just not convinced, however, it will work.

First, it affords the Republicans the opportunity to say Deeds is, well, lying about his intentions. The fact is that Deeds did vote for recent tax increases to fund transportation, so if he is going to say now he has no plans to raise taxes, he will need to explain why raising taxes seemed like the right medicine several months ago. This feeds into the caricature Republicans like to paint of Democrats -- we're incurable tax-and-spenders who won't level with voters during elections.

Read, for example, what Bearing Drift had to say today about this:

Don Beyer, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine could all do the “I’m not going to raise taxes” spiel with no voting record to deny and to suggest they might was to commit some grave sin of prevarication.

But Deeds does have a record, a long, long list of voting for tax increase after tax increase. Deeds voted for regional tax increases for Hampton Roads the same time he voted for massive tax increases across the state (we in Hampton Roads got a double whammy).

I’m not a professional political operative, so I won’t embarrass myself by trying to suggest a better message for Deeds, but (oh, okay, I will embarrass myself) as I said in my earlier post on this, it seems to me the effective response to the Republicans lay in a crafting a pithy argument along the lines of this: Deeds is a pragmatist searching for practical solutions to our problems. He will not take anything off the table if it will help the Commonwealth’s economy grow and make everyone more prosperous. No one can deny Transportation is an essential part of that. Bob McDonnell, on the other hand, is a ideologue trying to peddle the same narrow discredited economic policies of George W. Bush, unthinking reponses that are really no more than slogans that may sound good in a stump speech, but that we know from our current situation don’t work in the real world.

Perhaps I give the voters too much credit, thinking that they can understand this level of nuance. And, of course, it is easy for me, as a relatively anonymous blogger with nothing on the line professionally, to contribute my two cents. I'm quite honestly not certain what I would suggest were there a possibility of anyone actually listening to what I had to say, so perhaps the professionals have it right: When it comes to any mention of taxes, at all costs deny, deny, deny, and worry about it tomorrow.

McDonnell's Social Agenda: Run Away! Run Away!

In a post today, Conservative blog Bearing Drift was discussing a fund-raising e-mail from the Deeds campaign, in the process of which it claims the e-mail uses "the same tired rhetoric about McDonnell’s 'extreme social and economic agenda' (you mean the one that wants to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and keep taxes low?)"

Now, I don't work for the Deeds campaign, and am not certain what his campaign meant in this particular e-mail, but Bearing Drift's Mr. Hoeft, who wrote the post, is obviously smart enough to know that creating jobs, stimulating the economy and keeping taxes low are, at best, goals we all share, and at worst, meaningless political bromides intended to masquerade a candidates real policies.

That said, perhaps the "extreme social and economic agenda" to which the e-mail refers is one that, given its druthers, would outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, and even if the life of the mother is in danger; one that would leave in place outlawed gay marriage and civil unions; one that would deny gay people the right to become judges, and presumably other professions as well, on the grounds that they may have violated an anti-sodomy statute; one that rejected $125 million in federal aid for Virginia's unemployed on the grounds that it offended some debatable legal interpretation of state sovereignty.

But truth be told, all that is beside the point. What I don't understand is why Mr. McDonnell and his supporters seem to be running away from his extremely Conservative social positions.

Strange. It's like they are trying to keep this part of Mr. McDonnell's record from the voters. I wonder why?

GOP Howl on Transportation: Taxing and Spent

Lawyers have a saying about the proper way to mount an effective argument at trial.

If the facts are against you, the saying goes, you pound on the law. If the law is against you, you pound on the facts. And if the law and the facts are against you, you pound on the table.

Yesterday, trying to defend Virginia Republicans against charges of inaction on the issue of transportation, William Howell, the Speaker of The House of Delegates, pounded on the table.

By way of background, last week Gov. Kaine published an article in the WaPo discussing the GOP obstruction on transportation funding in the House of Delegates. Sunday, Speaker Howell responded with a political rant entitled, “Virginia Republicans Kept Their Promises on Transportation.”

Teeing up his attack on the Governor, Speaker Howell begins by falsely accusing Kaine of “[attempting to tag] Republicans in the House of Delegates with sole responsibility for every failing of Virginia’s transportation system.” According to Howell, “In [Kaine’s] view, credit for all progress on transportation belongs to his administration and the federal government under President Obama.” Gov. Kaine, according to Howell, is a “partisan hard-liner.”

Hilariously, Howell then proceeds to claim, on behalf of Republicans, credit for all progress on transportation in the Commonwealth, and to attack Kaine and Democrats in the House for opposing the GOP because their proposals did not include tax increases, as if tax increases were an end in themselves.

To be fair, Kaine did lay some blame for the state’s transportation woes at the feet of the GOP, specifically, the decision “that we should not invest more state dollars in transportation.” He also asserts Republican legislators “rebuffed” his “efforts to get more money for statewide or regional needs.”

These, however, are not so much partisan attacks as they are simply statements of fact with which I suspect, were he not so intent in working himself up into an angry lather, Speaker Howell would agree. Indeed, Howell crows about the efforts to block the gasoline tax increase Kaine proposed during the recent special session of the General Assembly, so what exactly is the beef he has with Kaine saying exactly the same thing, albeit from a different point of view?

But, hey, why should the GOP let reality intrude at this point? In defending Republican performance against Kaine’s imagined attack, Howell asserts that House Republicans were the sole driving force behind such initiatives as public-private partnerships for pursuing transportation projects and land use legislation.

Hmmm. I wonder what Gov. Kaine had to say about these initiatives? Did he take “sole responsibility” for them, as Howell claimed?

Here is what Gov. Kaine wrote about public-private partnership and land use legislation: “These changes have been important and generally bipartisan in nature.”

Uh, okay. Perhaps Speaker Howell missed that sentence when he read the article.

More seriously, to understand Speaker Howell’s table pounding requires some understanding of the dynamics of the transportation debate, and the larger problem facing the GOP as it seeks a return to political relevance.

Whatever critiques may fairly be leveled against Gov. Kaine for his failure to fix the Commonwealth’s transportation issues (and there are some), and whatever good policies the House GOP may have supported from time to time (and there are some), the central fact is that the Republicans in the House of Delegates have blocked efforts to address the core transportation problem in the Commonwealth: the lack of new funding for desperately needed new transportation infrastructure, mainly in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

For the last several sessions, the GOP has supported various budgeting tricks that move non-existing dollars from one place in the budget to transportation, measures that relied on projected surpluses that never materialized, or measures that rely upon speculative revenue to be generated, if ever, years in the future, such as future revenue from off-shore drilling. But these are measures designed to give the illusion of providing new funding while doing nothing of the kind. Whatever the relative merits of off-shore drilling, given the controversy over it, is staking transportation funding on revenue derived from it a serious and responsible proposal, or is it political theater?

Needless to say, the Righty Blogosphere in Virginia, found Howell’s argument convincing and inspiring. Gov. Kaine’s, uh, not so much. “Bill Howell Kicks Some Ass,” gushed Too Conservative. The generally more sober Tertium Quids was less sanguine about Howell and the GOP, but it labeled Kaine’s mostly factual article “strange.”

In fact, Howell’s aggressive broadside was a signal that Bob McDonnell and the GOP will default to its stale and discredited tactic of anti-tax demagoguery to obstruct any effort to deliver new funding for transportation. No matter how minimal or necessary such funding might be, it will undoubtedly be characterized as “the biggest tax increase in the history of the world since forever.”™ Indeed, that counts for Howell’s, if misplaced, denunciation of Kaine’s supposed partisanship on the issue. The GOP’s anti-tax position is not intended as a rational argument over policy; it only works as a rallying cause against the evil of government.

Howell's rant also presages the upcoming election.

Consider this from the blog Mason Conservative:

So yes, please o' please Deeds and Dems, run on who's going to cut taxes and who's not. I want to talk more about your plan to raise the gas tax during on the worst recessions in a long long time. I want to talk about Deeds supporting raising vehicle registration fees I want to talk about Deeds supporting fuel tax in Northern Virginia, I want to talk about Deeds voting for the 2004 tax increase while Messrs. McDonnell, Bolling, and Cuccinelli all voted "NO." Over and over again, "centrist" "conservative" Rural Courthouse Senator Creigh Deeds has voted YES, YES, YES for tax increase.

So please, lets make who's more likely to raise taxes on the middle class be it directly, or through gas, or through fees a legitimate issue. Because on the back benches in the Senate, Deeds sat back and voted yes over and over on this.

I certainly don’t speak for either the Deeds campaign or Democrats generally, but that debate will spell Democratic victory in November. Sure, there is an element of the electorate virulently anti-tax to which this argument will appeal. But this election is not about their votes, which are not going to Sen. Deeds anyway.

The problem is that voters will not necessarily frame the question like Mason Conservative does. The salient issue will not be "who's going to cut taxes and who's not." The issues voters will more likely be concerned with are who has a positive agenda for moving the state forward? Who has pragmatic ideas for solving the transportation problems of the state? If my taxes will go up, what will they be used for? Who will level with me about all the facts so I can make an informed decision?

And so forth...

This election is about he votes of Virginia’s moderates, and thanks in part to the failed administrations of Gov. Jim Gilmore and, more recently, President George W. Bush, these voters have wised up to the tired and mindless anti-tax rhetoric anti-tax rhetoric of the modern GOP. People have come to understand that the cause of low taxes for their own sake, disconnected from a discussion of the policies and programs such taxes are meant to finance, is not a recipe for good governance.

Does the Mason Conservative really want to talk about the 2004 tax increase? Is there some way to gauge how voters feel about that. If only we could have a proxy election on the issue, like Mark Warner running against Jim Gilmore for statewide office, perhaps we'd get some insight into that question? Ah, well, it’ll never happen – I guess we’ll just have to speculate about what voters think.

More recently, given the severity of Virginia’s transportation problem, does Mason Conservative really want to discuss the gas tax? Consider the proposed increase beat back by Republicans in the House of Delegates during the special session.

The proposed increase was a one cent per gallon per year over the next six years.

To put that into some context, if the average person drives 12,000 miles per year, and assuming an average of 25 MPG, in translates into an additional $5 per year. That would be a total of $30 over the entire six year period.

Of course, some will be taxed more, some less, depending on a variety of factors, but that is the average.

I’m confident, presented with all the facts, voters will, as a general matter, collectively come to common sense conclusions. This year, Creigh Deeds and the Democrats will be having a serious and honest discussion with voters about setting the Commonwealth on a path of sustained prosperity and economic justice and opportunity for all, a path that begins with fixing our transportation problems.

William Howell, Bob McDonnell and Mason Conservative meanwhile, signal that they will just be pounding the table.

Please, Don't Make Me Snark Again

Virginia Tomorrow is a website run by Bob Holsworth, a quality, if right-of-center political analyst from VCU. Indeed, Prof. Holsworth seems to be giving Larry Sabato a run for his money in the MSM quote sweepstakes.

I suppose it is only a matter of time (if it has not happened already) that a blogger opts to write under the name “NotBobHolsworth,” and we will know, for certain, that the good professor has truly arrived.

Dr. Bob, as he calls himself, publishes posts by guest writers at his site from time-to-time, and if anything, they point up what a good political analyst Dr. Bob himself is. His latest guest post, however, left me scratching my head a bit. It is from an obvious GOP shill named Tony Lee, who describes himself as “writing a book about how the GOP can appeal to minorities and Generation X and Y voters while staying true to its conservative principles and values and how Virginia is replacing California as the nation’s new harbinger state.”

In a post entitled, “Why Deeds’ Win Was Good for McDonnell,” we find the latest entry in the sweepstakes to explain why Democrats electing the best candidate to run against McDonnell was really the worst thing we could have done. (Can we really be this dumm?)

Lee’s argument, in his own words, is as follows (and as the humor columnist Dave Barry used to say, I am not making this up):

Had McAuliffe or Moran won the nomination, Republicans, thirsting for a revival, may have gone overboard in attacking the Democratic candidate. In essence, they may have made the same mistake Moran made in the primaries -- making the race about the opponent instead of about McDonnell. It would have been fun and exciting, but Virginia’s independent voters may have been turned off.”

Lee concludes, “With Deeds on the top of the ticket, the election will be less circus-like and more focused on meat and potatoes issues unless Democrats attempt to spuriously tie McDonnell to figures like George W. Bush. This helps McDonnell.”

Maybe the election will be more down to Earth, but Lee goes on to argue with plenty of bold assertions, but few actual facts, why McDonnell’s policy prescriptions are superior to those of Creigh.

At first, I had a difficult time making head or tail of this argument. But then I got to thinking about it, and could see the unassailable logic of it. Indeed, the more I thought about it, the more I realized there was recent historical precedent for Lee’s analysis.

In 2008, had the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton for president, the election would have been the political circus Lee paints, only on a national level, and probably much worse. In their rapturous glee of going negative on Hillary, the GOP would have certainly lost focus on winning and overplayed their hand, sending huge numbers of independent voters over to the Democratic side, as surely as lemmings follow one another to their deaths by walking off cliffs.

Fortunately for the GOP, Democrats played right into the Republicans’ hands by nominating Barack Obama. saving the Republican slime machine from its own worst instincts. Unable to rely upon the backlash to the overreaction that the Hillary nomination almost certainly would have caused, Poor Obama was left only to debate issues with the Republicans, a clear advantage for the GOP. To be sure, I'm surprised Obama survived that grueling ordeal with even a molecule of pride intact.

And that is why we have President McCain in office today.

Oh, wait...uh, well, I guess I need to work on the end there. But in any event, based on this analysis, here is the point: I really hope that once Mr. Lee’s book is complete, Republicans don’t read it. If they do, we may never be able to again elect another Democrat to office.

Crossposted to Blue Virginia.

Can Virginia Afford Four Years of Bob McDonnell?

One of the Conservative blogs I find worthwhile and interesting, Bearing Drift, has a blog post up entitled, “McDonnell v. Deeds in Perspective.”

Here is the essence of Bearing Drift’s take on the election before us:

There will be many issues that will be discussed, the economy, abortion, taxes, energy, and others. The issue that really gets to the heart of this election is simple. Will our Commonwealth be sovereign?

The underlying issue is whether or not Virginia will continue to lose sovereignty to the federal government. The recent controversy over accepting certain stimulus funds, is a perfect example. Governor Kaine has, in many ways, sacrificed Virginia’s sovereignty.

Now, I thought the “Recent Unpleasantness” answered the essential, broad question of state sovereignty, but perhaps not. In any event, while Virginia’s Bearing Drift Conservatives may subscribe to this view that state sovereignty is the signature issue of this election, I suspect that Mr. McDonnell does not. I went back and looked a few polls taken during the 2008 election regarding issues that voters cared about, and I have to tell you, state sovereignty did not make an appearance on any of them. I’m guessing Mr. McDonnell, if nothing else an intelligent fellow, noticed this as well. And indeed, based on the campaign he has run so far, it seems Mr. McDonnell wants to get elected, not make a point in the Republican Debating Society.

But to the extent that this sort of superficial and weak analysis reveals the ideological underpinnings of Mr. McDonnell’s policy choices, then it is fair to ask, as Creigh has done, whether Virginia can afford four years of Mr. McDonnell as Governor.

Nothing personal or negative. Here is why.

If serious Conservatives, including Mr. McDonnell do in fact think like this, then it is indicative of the fundamental problem that infects their movement today, namely, an inability to develop a set of affirmative policies based on their ideology that can gain the support of the electorate. It isn’t their fault, entirely. For one thing, the ideology itself is simplistic and, in this day and age, historically irrelevant, at least insofar as developing concrete policies is concerned. In an era of strained state budgets, tax cuts are not appealing; in a time of greater demand for state services, spending cuts are not desirable. In an era of high unemployment, a family cannot shelter or feed themselves with the knowledge that some degree of state sovereignty has been maintained.

If I may borrow from Bearing Drift, the recent controversy over accepting certain stimulus funds is a perfect example. There is, I am sure, a great intellectual, Constitutional and moral debate to be waged over whether those funds came with too many strings attached that impermissibly trampled on an early 19th Century view of state’s rights and individual liberties , but here on Earth, in the United States of America, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, in 2009, when tens of thousands of people are hungry, unemployed, homeless and just plain worried about what the future has in store for them and their children, turning down the money was just, what’s the expression I’m looking for here – oh, right, no need to get too technical -- bat-shit crazy.

So, if Mr. McDonnell just made a bad one-off call here on the stimulus funds, it’s one thing. But if it was his adherence to an ideology of protecting state sovereignty, as Bearing Drift asserts, that led him to make this BSC decision, meaning that we can expect four years of BSC decisions, then Mr. McDonnell should make that clear.

That way, we can make an informed decision of whether we can afford four years of him as Governor.

UPDATE: Lowell at Blue Virgnia noticed this post as well.

Larry Sabato's 10 Keys To The Governor's Mansion Revisited

Back in April I wrote about Larry Sabato’s 10 Keys to the Governor’s Mansion – the ten criteria identified by the UVA talking head/professor for handicapping Gubernatorial elections in Virginia that had amazing predictive power when applied retroactively.

In a somewhat confusing exercise, I attempted to use the 10 Keys as a means of evaluating which Democratic primary candidate would fare best against Bob McDonnell. EThe results were mixed, at best.

Now that the primary is over, the picture has cleared and, well, what the Hell, the 10 Keys are like a high fastball of political punditry and I have to take another swing at it.

One disclaimer. This analysis is art, not science. Reasonable people (including the three or four Virginia Republicans that fall into that group) can disagree with respect to my evaluation of each criteria, but for the most part I only conferred an advantage upon a candidate for a category if it was a clear advantage. Otherwise, I rated the category neutral.

Whichever candidate has the advantage in the most categories will be the winner. That’s not me talking -- Larry Sabado says so. As far as I’m concerned, once we have that we don’t even need to hold the election. Prof. Sabato’s opinion is typically more accurate than any election result could ever hope to be.

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

Neutral. Previously scored advantage R. The reason for the change is economic indicators have turned up and consumer confidence is rising. Unemployment, however, will continue to be an issue for the rest of the year.

2. Campaign Organization and Technology

Neutral.

3. Candidate Personality and Appeal

Neutral.

4. Retrospective Judgment on Previous Governor

Advantage D. Tim Kaine’s approval ratings are over 50%.

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

Advantage D.

6. Scandal.

Neutral

7. Party Unity.

Advantage D. Previously rated Neutral. Reason for change is that primary is over and Democrats are coming together behind Creigh. Republicans, on the other hand, on both a state and national level, are in the midst of a serious ideological struggle to define their party in the wake of devastating electoral losses over the last several elections. This struggle is, in the long term, healthy, but it tips this category, for this year, to Democrats.

8. Campaign Money.

Neutral.

9. Prior Office Experience of Candidates (where statewide elective office is given more weight that a district or local office).

Advantage R.

10. Special Issues and Dominant Circumstance.

Unknown.

Final tally: Deeds +2

Eric Cantor - Out of Touch

Just got done watching this clip of Eric Cantor discussing Creigh Deeds’ victory on Tuesday and his handicapping of the upcoming Gubernatorial race.

For example, Cantor asserts that the Deeds/McDonnell match-up will present clear choices for the voters. Here are the issues Cantor mentions:

- The vague and usual tax and spend charge
- EFCA (card check)
- Closing Guantanamo Bay Prison

Only someone who has no idea what is going on in the Commonwealth could possibly believe these are the issues that will predominate in the race such that they are the ones you mention first. Tax and spend Democrats? Yawn. EFCA? Isn't this a Federal issue? Closing Guantanamo? What bearing does this have on my day-to-day activities?

Anyone who has been paying attention knows the issues will be the ones that will directly affect people’s lives, like transportation, education and the environment, and, of course, the interdependent relationship these issues have to the Commonwealth’s economy and jobs.

On the one hand, Cantor could be signaling that these are the issues the GOP wants to be at the fore in this election (Please, bob, please, do this!), but I doubt it. And even if he was, McDonnell is clearly to smart to follow such wayward advice. Rather, Cantor’s comments and demeanor in this interview leave me convinced he is out of touch with what is going on back here in the Commonwealth, and he was merely parroting the three ideologial talking points that are able to fit in his brain at any one time.

Well, to be fair, is Cantor simply too preoccupied with his national leadership role to pay attention to his home state, or is the problem that he is simply not too bright? A little bit of both, I suspect. Keeping track of both is part of the job, of course, and it should not be that tough of a trick to manage.

But even as I castigate Cantor, I’d like to also pay homage to his considerable skills. Intelligence, after all, is not one of the qualities needed to be a leader in today’s Republican Party. In fact, intelligence and independence of thought can actually be a hindrance.

Rather, the ability to mindlessly adopt as your own the most extreme right-wing position on any issue, the willingness to kowtow to a hate-merchant like Rush Limbaugh and an ability to relentlessly repeat talking points consisting entirely of content-free ideological bromides without a hint of shame or self-awareness are, on the other hand, much more important.

Without doubt, Cantor possesses these skills in abundance.

Well, that’s good for Rush, but in the long run, Cantor’s abysmal lack of awareness of what is happening in his own backyard is a disservice to his Virginian constituents.

2009 Outlook: The good news and the better news

I don’t know when the first head-to-head polls showing Creigh matched up against Bob McDonnell will be out. Soon, I’d imagine. And when they do come out, I have no idea what they will show. To tell the truth, I could care less.

But as I sit here today, I have a pretty good idea where, all else being equal, the election will wind up on Nov. 3, no matter what the polls show us in the meantime, and that will be with Creigh winning this race by 4 to 5 points.

Before I get into the reason why this is so, I would just caution that we are a long way from Election Day. There will be plenty of gaffes to play out, negative advertisements to debunk and perhaps even scandals that bubble up to the surface. So, like a strong football team that can be undone by a weak one thanks to some ill-timed turnovers, quirky bounces of the football or a key player having a preternaturally great day, so can Creigh yet lose this race.

In 2005, McDonnell beat Creigh in a statewide election for Attorney General by roughly 350 votes out of nearly 2 million cast. During the primary, Creigh’s opponents would point to this loss as evidence that Creigh could not beat McDonnell.

The numbers, however, show something quite different; they show that Virginia is a different place in 2009 than it was four years ago, much to the favor of Democrats.

Take party identification. Virginia is simply significantly more Democratic. In 2005, according to Gallup polling, 46.2% of Virginia voters self-identified as Democrats or leaning Democratic, while 45.8% identified as actual or lean Republicans. The difference was .4% in favor of Democrats. Just a year earlier, however, the advantage was 11.3% in the Republican Party’s favor, a precipitous drop-off likely reflecting the diminishing approval of the Bush Administration around that time.

In 2008, meanwhile, the same poll showed self-identified Democrats and leaners at 47.5%, and self-identified or leaning Republicans at only 38.5%, a gap of 9% in the Democrat’s favor.

In addition, population in Virginia has shifted to Northern Virginia, which is more urban and more Democratic than other areas. For example, the top four Congressional Districts for Creigh in 2005 were 3, 8, 11 and 10. Creigh collectively took about 61% of the vote there (McDonnell actually won the 10th, but I have grouped it with other NoVA districts – 8 and 11 -- for purposes of this analysis.)

In 2005, those four districts constituted 35% of the total vote. In 2008, these districts constituted 37.6% of the total statewide vote, and increase of 2.5%.

McDonnell won all the remaining Congressional districts, including Deeds’ “home” districts of the 5th and 6th, as well as 1, 2, 7 and 9, with about 54.5% of the vote. Those districts constituted 65% of the vote in 2005, and 62.4% in 2008.

Do some math, and here is one thing you can learn. If all the 2005 vote percentages between Creigh and McDonnell are left in place, with the exception of adjusting the total vote count to reflect the population shift toward NoVA, it would add roughly 3,000 votes to Creigh’s total and he beats McDonnell easily. The reason is because population is moving into the areas where Democrats perform best.

So, if the candidates simply “repeat” their performances from their last contest, even though in 2005 Creigh lost, in 2010 we’d be saying, “Hello Governor Deeds.”

Of course, those percentages will not remain static, as this is a new election, with new issues and candidates with different levels of experiences and skills than they possessed in 2005. Who has the upper hand?

That brings us to the anecdotal, subjective factors, including:

- President Obama continues to enjoy high approval ratings in Virginia.
- In 2005, McDonnell outspent Deeds 2-1 (much of it during a primary, but still campaign cash spent to get his name and platform out to voters). In 2009, neither candidate will want for money.
- Gov. Kaine has approval ratings over 50%.
- Democrats are, for the most part, coming together after a hard-fought primary. The RPV, on the other hand, is bitterly divided over fundamental issues of ideology and defining the principles for which the party stands, disputes that are not so easily buried just for the sake of an election;
- On social issues, McDonnell is much more conservative than the Virginia electorate.
- While the national Republican Party can help McDonnell with money, there is a noticeable lack or party leaders able to help McDonnell appeal to the Democrats and Independents he will need to pull out a victory. Indeed, the names mentioned as potential surrogates for McDonnell, such as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity, rush Limbaugh and even Mark Sanford, may fire up the Conservative base, but they would almost certainly alienate Independents and moderates in doing so. That is a tough circle to square.
- Creigh, on the other hand, will have the support of our popular governor, two popular senators and eight Democratic Congressmen to serve as surrogates on his behalf across the Commonwealth, not to mention President Obama.
- Consider electoral performance since 2005 in statewide elections:

o 2006 – Webb wins Senate election over Allen with 49.6% of the vote
o 2007 – Democrats retake the Senate
o 2008 – Obama becomes first Democrat to win state since 1964 with 52.6% of vote
o 2008 – Warner wins Senate election over Gilmore with 65% of the vote

That is a lot to overcome.

I’ve been scratching my head trying to understand what factors mitigate in McDonnell’s favor, to wit:

- McDonnell has beat Creigh once (see above – that was then, this is now).
- McDonnell is a good campaigner and comes across as a moderate.
- Despite the dominance of the Democratic Party in Virginia and nationally since 2005, the GOP insists we are, in our hearts, a Center-Right country. We just don’t know it.
- The Republicans are really sad about all their losses lately, and they really, really, really want to win badly.
- Creigh lacks toughness (not true)

Of course, a campaign and an election, indeed, will take place, and anything can happen. The point is, Creigh starts with numerous factors that give him an advantage from the get-go.

The good news is this is Creigh’s election to lose.

The better news is that Creigh is pretty darn smart, and that is unlikely to happen.

This Is going To Be A Lot Of Fun

This comes courtesy of The Mudflats, an Alaskan blog. (h/t Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly)

Check out this exchange between Sean Hannity (keynote speaker at the RPV convention two weeks ago!) and Sarah Palin, failed VP candidate, possibly a future presidential candidate and almost certain surrogate for Bob McDonnell:

Hannity: …The price of oil is going up again. It’s not quite at $140 a barrel, but it’s on its way up to $70 and $80…

Palin: Yeah, well and I thank God it’s not at $140. You know people say, “Hey, Alaska! 85% of your state budget is based on the price of a barrel of oil. Aren’t you glad the price is going up?” I say, “No!” The fewer dollars that the state of Alaska government has, the fewer dollars we spend. And that’s good for our families and for the private sector.

Steve Benen explains it:

The problem, of course, is that Palin doesn't understand why she opposes government spending. In general, the Republican line is that it's important to limit spending so to keep taxes low and prevent deficits. But that doesn't apply to Alaska at all -- it already has exceedingly low tax rates and no budget deficit at all.

The governor, in other words, wants Alaska to have less money, just for the sake of having less money.

Benen is too kind. the fact is Sarah Palin is charismatic. She has a great schtick. She obviously has some political talents. But she is not too bright. That will not work for her in Virginia.

It is virtually certain that Palin, a bona fide star in the GOP with Presidential aspirations, will be here to campaign for McDonnell. And when she does, the GOP faithful will sing her praises. Young Republican males will swoon. Young Republican women will swoon.

Progressives will be watching, too, but because we will want to see how long it takes for her to say something crazy-ass stupid. If it takes longer than 10 minutes, I'll be surprised.

The 2009 Netroots Surrogate Debate

The blog Common Sense for Virginia has set up what promises to be an interesting debate among blogosphere supporters of the Democratic Gubernatorial candidates ahead of Tuesday's election: Lowell Feld of Blue Virginia, Carla Ward, who is Catzmaw over at Blue Commonwealth and Waldo Janquith, Virginia's very own blogfather. Lowell, of course, has been supporting Terry McAuliffe, Carla has been a strong advocate for Brian Moran (not to mention a pain in my butt quite a bit - :)) and Waldo, of course, in his low-key, but devastatingly effective way has been supporting Creigh.

Congrats to CSFV for getting this creative debate organized.

Here is CSFV's announcement. Questions can be left there, but if you submit questions below, I will happily pass them on.

It is Common Sense for Virginia's pleasure to announce our first major event as a blog. As the clock winds down to the Democrats' June 09 primary, many voters/bloggers are anxious to see some more arguments between the campaigns regarding everything from negative ads, to electability, to which endorsements help/hurt. As such, it seemed only fitting to host 1 final debate.

Common Sense for Virginia is excited to host the 2009 NetRoots Surrogate Debate with 3 experienced bloggers from different aspects of the Virginia blogging scene to represent each of the candidates. CSFVA is pleased to announce that Lowell Feld of Blue Virginia, Waldo Jaquith and Carla Ward of Catzmaw will be participating in this debate representing Terry McAuliffe, Creigh Deeds, and Brian Moran respectively. (Lowell's for Terry, Waldo for Creigh, Carla for Brian)

The debate is scheduled for 7:30PM on Sunday June 7, 2009 and you can submit the questions for the NetRoots debate. Either submit here in the comments section or email them to venukatta@hotmail.com including you city, state (if other than Va) and then your question to this surrogate debate. We only about 50 hours to make this last debate count! Submit your questions and watch the debate right here on Common Sense for Virginia (in the comments section of a blog post) between 7:30PM and until we're satisfied that we've had a thorough, intellectual discussion.

It's been an exciting primary season, and as it draws to an end, let's end it with a bang!

Deeds' Statement on McDonnnell Nomination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 30, 2009

CONTACT: Brooke Borkenhagen
507-317-4104

CREIGH DEEDS’ STATEMENT ON BOB MCDONNELL’S NOMINATION

CHARLOTTESVILLE – Today, Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds released the following statement after Bob McDonnell formally accepted the Republican gubernatorial nomination at the Virginia Republican State Convention in Richmond:

"Middle-class families don’t stand a chance with Bob McDonnell in the Governor’s mansion.  Bob said no to helping laid-off Virginians get back on their feet.  He said no to benefits for laid-off textile workers in Southside Virginia.  And for the last eight years, Bob has said no to the progress we have made under Mark Warner and Tim Kaine."

"And now, Bob McDonnell is trying to use energy politics to paint himself as a moderate.  But Virginia needs a leader who will do more than just pay lip service to new sources of energy.  I’m proud to have partnered with Tim Kaine earlier this year to create green jobs and make Virginia the leader in alternative and renewable energy.  As Governor, I will make important investments in new sources of energy to create new jobs and build Virginia's next economy."

"We need a nominee who can go toe-to-toe with Bob McDonnell in every corner of Virginia.  I’m the only Democrat in this race who can build the coalition of Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans that helped Mark Warner and Barack Obama win statewide.  Larry Sabato said that I would make it 'nearly impossible' for Bob McDonnell to win in November and The Washington Post said that I 'would make the best Governor in the Warner-Kaine tradition.'  No Democrat is better prepared to lead Virginia forward."