I've Left the Virginia Democratic Party...

Cross-Posted at DailyKOS and the HokieGuru blog

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

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

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

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

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

Sleeping Giants

As Democrats fret over polls showing Creigh getting clobbered, my eye caught something Joe Abbey recently told C’ville Weekly, Charlottesville’s weekly alternative periodical.

Here is what the paper wrote:

Deeds’ campaign is optimistic that polls are wrong because the pollsters don’t consider those who voted for the first time in 2008 as likely voters.

“We’ve been calling them our sleeping giants,” said Deeds campaign manager Joe Abbey. “They’re not showing up in the polls, but if they show up at the polls on Election Day, then it will be game over.”

Jus' sayin'.

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.

Showing Up

Judging by the backbiting and recriminations that have spilled over to the pages of the Washington Post, Democrats are stoically steeling themselves for a tough defeat on Nov. 3 by building the foundation to blame someone else.

Indeed, this argument has been going on in the blogs since June, when Creigh won the primary. Of course, memes move faster and more intensely in cyberspace.

In my view, there is still an election to be had, however, and as long as that is the case, anyone who cares about what will happen in the Commonwealth of Virginia for the next four years, at least, should focus on the question of what they can do to help Creigh win this election, because if recent elections have shown anything, they have shown that Republicans can no longer beat Democrats in Virginia; Democrats can only beat themselves.

The other day, conservative blog Bearing Drift carried a very interesting post about Bob McDonnell’s lead in the polls. Pregressives should listen. Here is what they had to say:

Polls are not strictly predictors. They do not foretell exactly what people are going to do. Rather, they are snapshots. They tell us what the results are likely to be should people show up on Election Day in the same numbers as the particular poll presumes they will.

In other words, the reliability of a poll is dependent upon the actual electorate closely resembling the pollsters’ sample. That is why it is important to look beyond the top-line results of these polls to understand what these polls are telling us about the potential electorate. That is also why the accuracy of a particular poll does not necessarily carry over from election to election. Quite simply, human beings are rather unpredictable.

[snip]

If Republicans are to win this election, however, it is going to take more than simply hoping the other side decides not to show up.

But, you know, the fact is that all Bob McDonnell does have for him in this election is hoping Democrats do not show up. Look at every poll – they go Bob’s way because the composition of likely voters is disproportionately heavy with Republicans and Conservatives compared to recent statewide Virginia elections.

Indeed, it seems sometimes that is how Republicans and Conservatives see the path to victory in every race: deter the other side from showing up to vote. Sometimes, they use sleazy tactics, like caging, and sometimes they use blatantly illegal ones, likie giving voters false information. GOP opposition to motor voter laws, or their insitance on picture IDs to register to vote, are all aimed at depressing turnout and voting rights.

So, leaving aside all the crap in the papers and the blogs about campaign strategy, and leaving aside all the parsing of policy, in the end we will be left with a choice between two people with very different worldviews and outlooks on the role of government in our lives.

if we show up, Creigh will win and Bob will lose – simple as that.

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.

Creigh's Depressing Comment On The Public Option

This exchange during tonight’s debate left me deflated:

Question: "Mr. Deeds, and would you go against some of your fellow Democrats and against the public plan?"

Creigh Deeds: "I'm not afraid of going against my fellow Democrats when I think they're wrong...Public option isn't required in my view, I think we have to do two things with health care, we have to reduce costs so more people can afford insurance and we have to increase coverage. I share those broad goals. I don't think the public option is necessary in any plan and I think Virginia...I would certainly consider opting out if that were available to Virginia. We have to find ways to increase competition in order to reduce costs..."

First, not only is Creigh clearly wrong on this – no health care reform can possibly succeed without some form of government-provided health insurance that provides meaningful competition to drive the cost of health care down – I don’t get the political calculation.

Democrats should be championing the public option, not running away from it, for two reasons. First, it is clearly the right policy that will lead to providing affordable health care to the people who are most hurting now – middle class families. If, as Democrats, we are not all about supporting the middle class, then we are in the wrong party.

Now, far right-wingers have demonized the public option as government-run health care. Creigh’s answer seems to buy into this bogus criticism. No Democrat should buy into this. We are the party of using government to make the lives of people better.

Finally, this was a chance for Creigh to really draw a distinction with Bob McDonnell on a critical issue. By unequivocally stating he would opt Virginia out of the public option were it passed by Congress, Bob McDonnell is saying that he would damage the health of every man, woman and child in Virginia for the sake of his extreme right wing ideology. Further, McDonnell’s critique of the public option was merely a recitation of talking points that are in some cases dishonest and in others simply wrong, but that have been in both cases fully debunked. The bottom line is that the “private sector, market-based solution” is what got us in the mess we’re in.

What an opportunity to lead and teach folks on a key issue that would not only be right and moral, but would also tap into to modern populist history of the Democratic Party beginning with Franklin Roosevelt.

Instead, Creigh tried to hedge on this critical issue, in the hopes of picking up votes from people who are not going to support him anyway.

This was just a blown opportunity to redefine this race around a winning issue.

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.

Washington Post Endorsed Creigh Deeds for Governor of Virginia

Great news... the Washington Post endorsed Creigh Deeds for Governor of Virginia.

And here's what they say about batshit crazy Taliban Bob McDonnell (who hides behind his wife and children in television commercials):

Mr. McDonnell has staked out the intolerant terrain on his party's right wing, fighting a culture war that seized his imagination as a law student in the Reagan era.

Yet Mr. McDonnell, champion of a revenue-starved status quo, remains in denial. He professes to feel the pain of Virginians struggling with financial hard times. In fact his transportation policy, a blueprint for stagnation and continuing deterioration, would subvert the state's prospects for economic recovery and long-term growth. And it would only deepen the misery of Northern Virginia commuters who already pay a terrible price -- economic, personal and psychological -- because of the state's long neglect of its roads.

As for Mr. McDonnell, he deserves credit for having run a disciplined, focused, policy-oriented campaign. As a candidate, a statewide official and a lawmaker, he has maintained a civil, personable manner. His intellectual agility, even temper and facility with the grit of policy have inspired the respect of colleagues, staffers and rivals. He is a dexterous politician.

Our differences with him are on questions of policy. The clamor surrounding his graduate dissertation from 1989, in which he disparaged working women, homosexuals, "fornicators" and others of whom he disapproved, has tended to obscure rather than illuminate fair questions about the sort of governor he would make. Based on his 14-year record as a lawmaker -- a record dominated by his focus on incendiary wedge issues -- we worry that Mr. McDonnell's Virginia would be one where abortion rights would be curtailed; where homosexuals would be treated as second-class citizens; where information about birth control would be hidden; and where the line between church and state could get awfully porous. That is a prescription for yesterday's Virginia, not tomorrow's.

Mr. McDonnell has inspired a worthwhile debate over privatizing liquor sales in Virginia, one of 18 states that control the wholesale and retail trade in spirits. But by suggesting the state could use the proceeds of privatization as an ongoing funding source for road improvements, he has played fast and loose with the facts -- first by plucking projected revenue figures from thin air and second by glossing over the question of what state services he would cut if the $100 million currently gleaned from annual liquor sales could be diverted for transportation.

Mr. McDonnell has sought to corner Mr. Deeds by focusing on debates in Washington over energy policy, labor union membership and other contentious federal issues. But a governor of Virginia can do little to influence the ideologically charged debates raging on Capitol Hill. Mr. McDonnell also has claimed he would be more effective at creating jobs. Yet while Mr. McDonnell has been an activist public servant, he has no significant record, either as a lawmaker or as attorney general, of promoting policies to encourage job growth.

ON NOVEMBER 3, 2009, VOTE FOR CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA!!

Organizing for Virginia 2009 and President Barack Obama's Visit in Support of Creigh Deeds

First, Democrats are making a big weekend push in Virginia to campaign for Creigh Deeds. President Barack Obama's campaign arm, Organizing for America, sent e-mails to thousands of members in DC and Maryland asking for 5000 volunteer hours. If you can get out, please do because this race is about more than Virginia. Deeds will appear at six events with DNC Chairman and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and Jody Wagner, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, in Northern Virginia. Anita Kumar from the Washington Post's Virginia Politics Blog has more here.

Second, Rosalind Hilderman (from the Washington Post's Virginia Politics Blog), tells us that President Barack Obama is coming to Virginia on October 27, 2009 to campaign in support Creigh Deeds and the rest of the Virginia Democratic ticket. We'll bring you more details when we have them.

Ask not what your President can do for you

Interesting item, from the Adam Nagourney article in today’s New York Times:

A White House that has shown no hesitation to delve into state race [sic] across the country … has been struggling to figure out how to deal with Virginia. Mr. Deeds’ aides have pleaded with the White House to send Mr. Obama into the state; they have yet to agree.

“The most precious commodity we have is the president’s time, and we have to appropriate it on a rational basis between now and Election Day,” said David Axelrod, a senior advisor to Mr. Obama.

Now, that comment is simply hilarious, especially in light of the convincing defenses offered by Mr. alelrod in defending Obama's trip to Copenhagen.

Mr. Axelrod, however, apparently believes he can say just about anything and by infusing that quality in Mr. Obama, it will be taken seriously. Here, try this on to see what I mean: “The most precious commodity we have is the president’s sense of fashion when it comes to mixing and matching colors and textures, and we have to appropriate it on a rational basis between now and Election Day,” said David Axelrod, a senior advisor to Mr. Obama.)

To anyone who has been paying to attention to Obama’s nine months in office, one thing has become clear to me. This presidency is not about the economy, or energy, or any particular policy. The Obama presidency is about Obama, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is a means to an end.

Thus, Obama does not ask himself how he can help Democrats win in Virginia. Rather, Axlerod’s comments make clear that Obama is concerned with how Virginia will help him.

The calculation at this point seems to be that Creigh will lose this race, and if Obama gets too involved, then the Virginia gubernatorial results can be spun as a referendum on Obama. But if the president does not get too involved, then Obama gets to spin the race as a local contest in which Obama was not front and center.

Right off the bat, I draw two conclusions from this:

Creigh was absolutely correct not to rely on Obama’s Virginia coalition in trying to win this race. He correctly read that Obama would be a follower, not a leader, in the election. Had Creigh relied on Obama, this election would be lost. As it is, Creigh is behind, but the election remains winnable.

For all the talk of change and a transformational presidency, Obama is just another typical politician, clinging onto power for power’s sake. I still support him and am in line with his overall goals and governing philosophy, but he is not a Democratic Party leader.

Bob McDonnell's Macaca Moment - Sheila Johnson

It made Hardball :)



George Allen, Bob McDonnell, and Sheila Johnson = Macaca

Hat Tip - Not Larry Sabato - Sheila Johnson Does the Dirty for Bob McDonnell

It is absolute bullsh*t that Sheila Johnson would make fun of a political candidate with a slight speech impairment. That's what she did to Creigh Deeds, an honest, nice, hard-working, intelligent man. Not Larry Sabato has more. Now, to her credit, she did apologize later... but...



No apology from the Taliban Bob McDonnell campaign. Stay classy, Batshit Crazy Bob!!

VIRGINIA WOMEN BE VERY SCARED OF BOB MCDONNELL!!!

Taliban Bob McDonnell is not taking anything back from his batshit crazy Christan Broadcasting Network (CBN) thesis, which depicts his Pat Robertson-esque right-wing views on the role of women on society.



VOTE CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA!!

Blue Virginia (Hat Tip): McDonnell "All Porn Makes You Gay" Thesis Story Makes Rachael Maddow

Apparently, Taliban Bob McDonnell thinks that pornography makes young boys gay.



Lowell has more on Batshit Crazy, Bob McDonnell and the story of his thesis that made Rachel Maddow's television show on MSNBC.

VOTE CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA.

Creigh Deeds Showing Leadership on Virginia Transportation Issues

Well, it takes a lot of courage to come out and say that you'll take a politically difficult position of signing legislation that is the product of bipartisan compromise that provides a comprehensive transportation solution for the State of Virginia... even if it might raise taxes during a recession. And that's what Creigh Deeds did today.

Let me be clear regarding taxes. I will sign a bill that is the product of bipartisan compromise that provides a comprehensive transportation solution. As a legislator, I have voted for a number of mechanisms to fund transportation, including a gas tax. And I'll sign a bipartisan bill with a dedicated funding mechanism for transportation -- even if it includes new taxes.

To build a bipartisan consensus to find that new revenue, and to ensure the best chance of passage, all options for funding will be on the table. We will need every legislator committed to finding a solution. In my 18 years in the legislature, I've learned that the best way to reach compromise is to be open to all ideas and get everyone involved.

Bob McDonnell has pledged not to sign a transportation bill with new revenue. His approach is to pay for transportation with money from the general fund. As The Post's Frederick Kunkle has reported, "general funds are raised from a variety of sources, such as individual and corporate income taxes. These funds can be spent . . . at the discretion of the General Assembly and the governor. The majority of the money in the general fund goes to education (45.9 percent), with the rest to health and human resources (24.2 percent) and public safety (11.1 percent)."

I do not support taking funds from these critical priorities to pay for roads. More important, neither will the General Assembly. Republicans and Democrats are on record opposing McDonnell's funding proposals.

McDonnell's idea of using general funds for transportation is not new. In 2007, an editorial in the Daily Press of Hampton Roads said that McDonnell urged "the General Assembly to exploit the gap in state road funding as a rationale for reducing state spending on education, public safety, health care and conservation. That such an ideological purpose lies behind the Republican transportation proposal has been implied all along. McDonnell made it explicit."

We can't solve this problem without new revenue. My opponent is playing political shell games, being dishonest about his revenue projections. And his idea to take funds from education, health care and public safety to pay for transportation is dead on arrival.

My approach is honest, straightforward -- and the only one that can succeed. Working together, we'll get Virginia moving again.

Creigh Deeds just served Bob McDonnell some leadership.

VOTE CREIGH DEEDS FOR GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA!!

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.

No retreat, baby, no surrender

Creigh’s speech tomorrow at GMU will be an opportunity for him to lay out the themes for the 2009 Gubernatorial race. Creigh will be talking about, in a personal way, how his life has forged his values and worldview, and how that will inform the manner in which he governs. And from there, he will draw the stark distinctions between a Virginia led by him and one led by Bob McDonnell.

But in the end, really, for this speech to be effective, it can’t be about Creigh, or about Bob McDonnell. In the end, it has to be about us, and about what kind of Commonwealth we will be living for the next four years and beyond.

I, for one, think it is worth paying attention.

I’m weary of hearing that Virginian Democrats are tired and complacent. Maybe, after a tough primary, Creigh wasn’t your first choice for our candidate and you’re not enthused. But for good or bad, this election is upon us, and it is time, IMHO, for all of us to get our heads in the game.

Here is what Creigh will be talking about tomorrow, and what is at stake for all of us in November:

1. On jobs and the economy, do we want to move Virginia forward in an environment of economic justice and equal opportunity for all, or to we want to return to the failed economics of George Bush – the economic policies that time and again Bob McDonnell has extolled as his model. What did those policies bring us? Home foreclosures, bankruptcies, unemployment and fear. Sure, the rich folks did fine under George Bush, and the wealthy will do fine with Bob McDonnell as Governor. As for the rest of us…

2. On education, what are the records of each of these candidates? Creigh has been a defender of public education his entire career. His grandparents were teachers. What of Bob McDonnell? His record in the General Assembly has been one of taking resources away from public schools. Even now, Bob McDonnell wants to take money away from schools to fund his transportation plan. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

3. Bob McDonnell says social issues don’t matter. As for the real Bob McDonnell, the one who throughout his public career has been hostile to a woman’s right to choose, the one who has sought to defend discrimination against gay people, the one who has opposed stem cell research that could cure diseases like juvenile diabetes, well, as for that Bob McDonnell, like the projected image of the Great and Wonderful Oz, that Bob McDonnell urges us to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. That man is the real Bob McDonnell, and we need to pay close attention.

The speech will be webcast at www.deedsforvirginia.com.

McDonnell's Online Defenders Show Their Contempt For Voters

The reaction of Bob McDonnell and his supporters to questions about Bob McDonnell’s position and record on the right to choose is quite telling. They have tried everything – avoidance, indifference, dissembling, attacking Creigh, -- everything that is except Mr. McDonnell coming clean on the issue. The reason why – that the very conservative Mr. McDonnell is trying to present himself to the electorate as a moderate – is self-evident.

That politics, of course, and it is par for the course.

But a post earlier today at Bearing Drift by JR Hoeft was a particularly odious effort to turn the issue back on Creigh.

Citing an answer Creigh gave to a question during an interview in Hampton recently, Mr. Hoeft wrote:

Creigh Deeds was recently speaking at a church radio talk show in Hampton Roads and had the opportunity to discuss abortion.

His statement on abortion is appalling…claiming that he’s “never been so poor or so desperate” to think about abortion as an option.

Does this mean the only people who should contemplate abortion are the poor and desperate? If that’s the case, should there be a litmus test on income before abortions are performed? What’s the desperation test?

The only thing that is appalling is Mr. Hoeft’s distortion of Creigh’s remarks.

Here is the text of what Creigh said:

Abortion is not an easy thing to talk about. My wife and I have been party to four wonderful pregnancies. We have four children that we love very much and that love us. And it [abortion] is a very difficult thing to think about, but frankly, from my perspective I’ve never been so poor or so desperate, that I would think about abortion.

First, blogger Vivian Paige, who enjoys an impeccable reputation among Progressives and Conservatives alike, was present for the remarks, and she states that Mr. Hoeft took Creigh’s remarks “out of context.”

So far, I’ve been unable to locate the full discussion or a transcript.

But you don’t need that to see what Mr. Hoeft has done. Creigh was clearly discussing his own experience in a serious and honest manner, and in trying to imagine how he and his wife might have personally faced the decision, he considers circumstances under which he would have been so poor or so desperate to consider abortion as an alternative.

Look how he starts: “Abortion is not an easy thing to talk about.” No, it is not. Later, he reiterates that abortion is “a very difficult thing to think about.”

What is particularly sickening about Mr. Hoeft’s actions is that Creigh attempted to discuss a difficult legal, moral and ethical issue like an adult, with sensitivity, introspection and reflection, and rather than treat his comments accordingly, Mr. Hoeft chooses to twist them into a monstrous distortion to launch an unwarranted political attack.

Not only is this offensive, I wonder whether it gives away the McDonnell game plan. Mr. Hoeft is a well-known blogger in conservative circles. His response to a serious discussion of abortion was basically to tell the voters of Virginia “Fuck you. Before we will seriously discuss the legal, moral, ethical and spiritual issues around the right to choose, we will say anything, distort any words and lie to try to turn the tables on Creigh.”

This is exactly the problem. The right to choose is an important and serious civil liberties issue. It is certainly a serious matter on an emotional level for many women who choose to have an abortion rather than see a fetus to term. It deserves serious discussion.

Mr. Hoeft is apparently incapable of this, and so meaningful debate with him on the issue is not possible. If you doubt this, consider the title Mr. Hoeft gave his post on facebook: “Deeds supports abortion as eugenics?” Disgusting.

The really sad part is that this not only shows contempt for the voters of Virginia, pro-choice and pro-life in varying degrees, it also shows contempt for many good people who, on the pro-life side like Bob McDonnell, hold strong and heartfelt opinions on this difficult issue. I don’t agree with Mr. McDonnell on this issue, but like him I am a religious person, and I respect his views and the spiritual basis for them. Unfortunately, Mr. McDonnell’s supporters, apparently, do not.

Are You Ready For The Country?

Two weeks ago, a vigorous debate erupted in the Progressive blogosphere in Virginia over Creigh Deeds’ rural strategy. The debate was never resolved, but petered out as the campaign and bloggers involved in it moved on to other issues.

The debate began Aug. 2, when Miles Grant, in a post entitled “Deeds Doubles Down on Rural Roots,” slammed the “Deeds Country” tour, appearing to argue that Creigh needed to spend all his time nailing down his Democratic base in Virginia’s urban, suburban and exurban areas, and not mess around for 10 days in Southside and Southwest Virginia. In Miles’ view, Creigh needed to spend all his time trying to get a dispirited base more excited.

There was polling to support this view. More specifically, PPP polls and SUSA polls, showing Bob McDonnell with a double-digit lead over Creigh, described an enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats that was evident in each polls composition of likely votes, both skewed heavily toward the GOP. (Even as I write this, a new Washington Post poll ominously suggests Creigh has a great deal of work to do to nail down his base). Further, as the news of the disruption of town halls across the nation rode the crest of the cable news wave, Conservatives took heart that if they couldn’t win elections, at least they could temporarily shout down the opposition. Woohoo!

Meanwhile, Creigh’s campaign seemed off the rails. It wasn’t clear who was in charge, the candidate was mostly invisible, bloggers were being shunted aside and there was no clear message. And now that the post-primary unity love-fest had a chance to wane, some Progressive bloggers began to give voice to the fact that Creigh was significantly more moderate than many of them; they were anti-McDonnell, for sure, and would obviously vote for Creigh, but enthusiasm among this particular group of activists for Creigh was not high.

It was into this environment that the Deeds Country video and tour rode. Not only did the tactic fail to address any of the problems described, above, in the context of all these issues it seemed like a political non sequitur. The homespun video added to the concern. Was Deeds Country a sincere and effective entreaty to rural voters, or simply laughable campaign kitsch, poorly-timed and off the mark that confirmed the Deeds camp was in disarray?

To be sure, this was an instance where the mocking commentary of NotLarrySabato captured the zeitgeist perfectly, at least among NoVA bloggers, with the classic tweet, "Can someone please tell @CreighDeeds he is running for Governor of an urban/suburban state- not Sheriff of Mayberry."

Other bloggers, especially those from the rural parts of the state, took issue with the criticism, arguing that the tour was necessary and a success. Their message was clear: not everything revolves around Northern Virginia.

As for me, I really wasn’t sure what to think.

At that point, Lowell at Blue Virginia weighed in with an analysis that looked at the strategy of going after the rural vote, as opposed to the specific tactic of Deeds Country, as Miles had done. Lowell noted that both Kaine and Webb won their races by focusing on the “Urban Crescent,” that swath of the state beginning in the exurbs of Loudoun County and curving down the 95 corridor to Richmond, as opposed to Southside and Southwest Virginia.

Lowell also noted that Mark Warner used a rural-centric strategy effectively in 2001, so it was a viable path to a Democratic victory.

In the end, however, Lowell concluded:

Perhaps Mark Warner is sui generis in Virginia politics, and perhaps it had to do with money (Warner outspent Earley more than 2:1 in the general election), but it's nonetheless impressive for a guy from Alexandria City.

This year, we've got a candidate from western/rural Virginia, which means he should have a natural competitive advantage in that part of Virginia. If not, he's probably toast anyway. If so, then what Deeds has got to do is focus his efforts heavily on the "urban crescent" strategy that worked for Jim Webb, Tim Kaine, and to an extent Mark Warner (we haven't even discussed Barack Obama, who won huge in the "urban crescent"). In short, that means a Deeds campaign focus on: a) African Americans; b) NOVA; and c) Hampton Roads (not necessarily in that order). If Deeds can hold his own in rural Virginia and rack up large margins in the "urban crescent," he wins big.

Well, with the two most widely read websites in the Virginia blogosphere leveling such pointed critiques at the Deeds’ campaign, it wasn’t long before the story found its way into the mainstream media. On Aug. 6, the Washington Post wrote about it. The debate over tactics and strategy even drew the following comment from Creigh himself: "There are some bloggers who think that because I'm from rural Virginia, I can take for granted some bloc of Virginians. Does that mean that Northern Virginia is any less important? Absolutely not. That's where the election will be won or lost."

In the meantime, I interviewed Creigh as he kicked off Deeds Country (the timing was sort of coincidental). I asked him whether he thought it would be a base election or a fight for independents, and if the latter, where those voters would come from. He answered:

I don’t know if I think about it that way. You’ve got to drive your base out, but it’s going to be decided by independents. If we drive out the Democratic base, we’re still going to need a few votes.

[snip]

A lot of them are in rural Virginia. A lot of them are the voters we want to reach out too [with the Deeds Country tour]. But there are independent voters all over the place.

Data suggests that, as Creigh said, a lot of those independent voters are, in fact, located in the rural areas -- areas that are generally GOP strong holds. Based on a review of historical voting numbers, I would describe these voters as not beholden to any particular political ideology – they tend to be “live-and-let-live” types of folks – but voters who are looking for a rural, traditional, religiously focused cultural sensibility with which they are comfortable. See Steve Jarding and Mudcat Saunders “Foxes in the Henhouse”.

These historical voting patterns suggest that the Democratic candidate that can speak to these voters has the reasonable potential to win roughly three times as many extra votes in the Commonwealth’s rural Republican stronghold districts (compared to the average performance of Democrats in those areas) as he does in the Democratic strongholds.

In other words, Creigh has more to gain from minimizing traditional Democratic weakness in rural areas than he does from maximizing traditional Democratic strength in urban and suburban ones.

To show why, I looked at the past five, competitive, non-federal elections for statewide office in 2001 and 2005 (I excluded the 2001 AG election as a total outlier). Democrats, of course, won three of those elections (2001 Gov., 2001 LG, 2005 Gov.) and lost two (2005 LG, 2005 AG), with one loss (2005 AG) effectively being a tie.

To evaluate the potential effect of Democratic strength in the Democratic stronghold districts roughly comprising the “Urban Crescent” -- the 3rd, 8th and 11th – I looked at the margin of victory in each race, and then calculated that number as a percentage of total votes cast in each race(TVC).

- 2001 Gov. – Warner: + 118,000 (26 % of TVC)
- 2001 Lt. Gov. – Kaine: + 112,000 (25 % of TVC)
- 2005 Gov. – Kaine: +162,000 (33 % of TVC)
- 2005 Lt. Gov – Byrne: + 136,000 (27 % of TVC)
- 2005 AG – Deeds: +123,000 (25 % of TVC)

The average of all five races was 27.2%, with a standard deviation of 3.4, suggesting that Creigh’s margin of victory in the 3rd, 8th and 11th will arguably range from 23.9% to 30.5%.

I followed the same procedure to evaluate the potential of Democratic strength in the top Republican strongholds, looking at Democratic margins of losses in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th
For the same elections:

- 2001 Gov. – Warner: -11,000 (1.5% of TVC)
- 2001 Lt. Gov. – Kaine: -31,000 (4.5% of TVC)
- 2005 Gov. – Kaine: -49,000 (6.5 % of TVC)
- 2005 Lt. Gov – Byrne: -105,000 (14% of TVC)
- 2005 AG – Deeds: -67,000 (8.9 % of TVC)

The average loss was 7.08% of TVC, with a standard deviation of 4.7%, suggesting a range of Democratic losses here as ranging from 2.4% to 11.8% of TVC.

It is clear from these numbers that Democrats obviously have much greater potential to pick up or, obviously, lose more votes in the GOP Districts, where there is relatively wide fluctuation in Democratic candidate performance, than in the Democratic districts, where the data suggests Democrats consistently perform near the apogee of what is reasonably possible.

To quantify this, take a look at how Creigh might fare in 2009, using 2005 turnout numbers, if he followed a Rural-centric or “Urban Crescent-centric” strategy, and applying the potential ranges of margins of victory and of loss, respectively, in both Democratic and Republican strong holds:

The Urban Crescent Strategy

Margin of Victory in Dem Districts (assuming best performance w/in Std Dev): 155,000
Margin of loss in GOP Districts (assuming average performance): 55,000
Differential: Creigh + 100,000
Benefit to Creigh vs. Average: 24,000

The Rural strategy

Margin of victory in Dem Districts (assuming average performance): 138,000
Margin of loss in GOP Districts (assuming best performance w/in Std Dev): 18,200
Differential: Creigh + 119,800
Benefit to Creigh vs. Average: 43,800

Thus, roughly the potential to pick up 20,000 more votes.

This analysis, however, addresses only the quantitative issue, i.e., whether this strategy makes sense given the potential reward. It does not address the issue of whether, under the particular circumstances of this campaign, it is a good strategy to follow. That requires consideration of at least four, undoubtedly more, significant qualitative factors, i.e., considerations that evaluate the possibility of Creigh reaching the greatest beneficial potential.

First is the issue of the effect of Creigh’s base in rural areas. Lowell assumes that because Creigh is from a rural area, by virtue of geography alone Creigh will already get sufficient votes in rural Virginia, more than is typical for a Democrat. “This year, we've got a candidate from western/rural Virginia, which means he should have a natural competitive advantage in that part of Virginia,” Lowell wrote. “If not, he's probably toast anyway.”

This argument, however, clearly suggests Creigh should make an aggressive pitch for rural votes, not sit back. Creigh may have competitive advantages in rural areas, as Lowell states, but those advantages will come only into play if he actually competes for the votes. To me, that is one of the major lessons of the Warner campaign. If you want the votes, ask for them.

Which brings me to the second qualitative factor, namely, whether Creigh is a Democrat who can connect with these rural voters, or whether Mark Warner is, as Lowell put it, sui generis?

Again, Warner is the exception that proves the rule. Warner might very well be sui generis in terms of an urban politician, but here is where Creigh’s rural roots come into play. Warner, of course, required Mudcat Saunders to help him connect with rural voters; Creigh is the real deal. If he can do it, then no Democrat can. But like Warner, because he is a Democrat he will have to work for it. He can’t take it for granted just because he from a rural area.

Third, does Creigh risk anything by not focusing solely on the Urban Crescent? The answer is no. The numbers show a relatively tight range of potential returns in that area, as the data suggests that even a poor performance by Creigh in the Dem strong holds would leave him with a margin of 24%, or 9,000 votes fewer that he could expect on average. Thus, a strong performance in rural areas still leaves him ahead of the game.

Fourth is the great unknown of turnout, specifically turnout by the Obama voter. Hundreds of thousands of voters registered last year; were they strictly Obama voters, or have they become engaged in Virginia's political process to the extent that the state races have captured their attention? That is unknown right now.

One last matter: asserting that going after the rural vote is a worthwhile strategy is not a judgment on whether Deeds Country was an effective tactic in pursuit of this strategy. This piece is already too long for me to consider that.

But I will say, for any rural strategy to be effective, it needs to connect on some visceral level with all Democrats around the state,, rural, urban and suburban at the same time. You can’t say one thing in Danville and another in Falls Church; you can be an “aw shucks yokel” in bath, and a smart, sophisticated lawyer in Fairfax. But this can be achieved by intelligently discussing the issues that are common to all Democrats – economic and social justice, a clean environment, education available to all, and fairness in the allocation of burdens among all people for raising resources to improve our Commonwealth, from the perspective of how Creigh’s rural and traditional roots informs his thinking on these issues.

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.