I have heard that one of the two Augusta "Chairmen", Kurt Michael, is seeking an injunction from the Court against Fred Anderson, demanding that Anderson recognize him as the true Chairman of the Augusta County Republican Party.
As 6th District Chairman, Anderson has appointed a special Committee to investigate the Augusta County Mass Meeting, where two men have both claimed they were elected Chairman. This Committee has two members, Vito Gentile, Shenandoah Region Vice Chairman, and Rick Claybrook, a long time party activist and attorney with extensive knowledge of party rules. The Committee will present it's findings and recommendations to the 6th District Committee on May 2nd. The Committee can then vote the report up or down, which will decide who the Augusta County Chairman is. The losing Chairman can then appeal to State Central.
Sounds like a fair process to me. So why would Kurt Michael seek to circumvent that process and go to the Court now? If he felt he had a strong case, why not let the process play out to the end? I think it's because Michael is worried that he doesn't have a strong case. So if you can't play by the party rules, just get the Court involved. Absolutely disgusting tactics by Michael. Shame on him.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Last Word on the Recent Tax Debates
I have read with great interest the recent posts by former Senator Marty Williams and DJ McGuire at the Right Wing Liberal and I’ve come to this conclusion. Both sides made serious mistakes that cost our Party the majority in the State Senate.
I plan for this to be the last time I comment on this subject as I think we very much need to move on and look to the future as opposed to obsessing over the past.
The Senate leadership was wrong to create an environment where it was OK to raise taxes. They gave the impression that they never really saw a tax they didn’t like and that was a huge mistake. In 2004, Governor Warner proposed a tax increase. Not only did the Senate support it, but they went bigger. At one point, the Senate proposal was 3 times what Warner wanted. For the record, I opposed both Warner’s and the Senate’s tax increases. We were in an economic recovery and would soon have surplus dollars—the absolute wrong time to start talking about tax increases. There was a need for more transportation dollars, but not a general fund increase, which is what ultimately passed. It was a mistake to leave transportation on the table in 2004.
In 2006, we considered tax increases to pay for a new transportation plan. With surpluses in the backdrop, this was again the wrong approach. I actually proposed returning all surplus dollars to the taxpayers so that issue would be off the table when we were talking about transportation. Nobody listened.
In 2007, we made another attempt to address the transportation issue. HB 3202 was Frankenstein’s monster—debt, regional taxing authorities, and abuser fees—not real reform.
We didn’t need a general fund infusion like the one we got in 2004. I felt strongly that the economic recovery would take care of the GF problem. I was right.
We did need to shift revenue to transportation and consider incremental fee increases—this was when gas was $1.70 a gallon. Granted, a much harder sell now. We needed to reform the system and move decision making out of Richmond and back down to the local level.
OK. Now that I’ve beat up the Senate, let me agree with Marty Williams on a few points. The primary challenges seriously weakened our position in 2007. Those 5 races cost millions of dollars. That’s money that could have been used to defend incumbents and challenge Democrats. I believe that Nick Rerras could have been saved had he had more money. My own seat and Marty’s would likely not have been targeted by the Democrats had they not become open. Those open seats costs hundreds of thousands of extra dollars.
The Democrat candidate in the 22nd District made several comments to me personally that he had no hope of knocking me off. But he knew he had a much better chance against Ralph Smith in the open seat. And he was right. He was able to raise around $750,000 and came within 700 votes of winning in a 60/40 Republican district.
As a party, we were completely focused on defeating our own incumbents and defending seats. The Democrats were on the offensive. We all know the end result.
So, was the Senate leadership wrong for creating a pattern of tax increases? Yes. Did this encourage the primary challenges? Absolutely. Did the primary challenges cost us the majority? I have no doubt that they did. And if you knock off an incumbent you better be damned sure you can hold the seat against the opposition—Stall wasn’t able to do that. If you stage a coup, you better bring enough guns!
So what do we take from all this? I think both sides have to admit they made some mistakes and that the opposing side has some legitimate arguments. Once that’s done, we can look to the future. We can put this mess behind us, find the areas on which we agree, and go beat some Democrats!
http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/marty-williams-still-doesnt-get-it/
I plan for this to be the last time I comment on this subject as I think we very much need to move on and look to the future as opposed to obsessing over the past.
The Senate leadership was wrong to create an environment where it was OK to raise taxes. They gave the impression that they never really saw a tax they didn’t like and that was a huge mistake. In 2004, Governor Warner proposed a tax increase. Not only did the Senate support it, but they went bigger. At one point, the Senate proposal was 3 times what Warner wanted. For the record, I opposed both Warner’s and the Senate’s tax increases. We were in an economic recovery and would soon have surplus dollars—the absolute wrong time to start talking about tax increases. There was a need for more transportation dollars, but not a general fund increase, which is what ultimately passed. It was a mistake to leave transportation on the table in 2004.
In 2006, we considered tax increases to pay for a new transportation plan. With surpluses in the backdrop, this was again the wrong approach. I actually proposed returning all surplus dollars to the taxpayers so that issue would be off the table when we were talking about transportation. Nobody listened.
In 2007, we made another attempt to address the transportation issue. HB 3202 was Frankenstein’s monster—debt, regional taxing authorities, and abuser fees—not real reform.
We didn’t need a general fund infusion like the one we got in 2004. I felt strongly that the economic recovery would take care of the GF problem. I was right.
We did need to shift revenue to transportation and consider incremental fee increases—this was when gas was $1.70 a gallon. Granted, a much harder sell now. We needed to reform the system and move decision making out of Richmond and back down to the local level.
OK. Now that I’ve beat up the Senate, let me agree with Marty Williams on a few points. The primary challenges seriously weakened our position in 2007. Those 5 races cost millions of dollars. That’s money that could have been used to defend incumbents and challenge Democrats. I believe that Nick Rerras could have been saved had he had more money. My own seat and Marty’s would likely not have been targeted by the Democrats had they not become open. Those open seats costs hundreds of thousands of extra dollars.
The Democrat candidate in the 22nd District made several comments to me personally that he had no hope of knocking me off. But he knew he had a much better chance against Ralph Smith in the open seat. And he was right. He was able to raise around $750,000 and came within 700 votes of winning in a 60/40 Republican district.
As a party, we were completely focused on defeating our own incumbents and defending seats. The Democrats were on the offensive. We all know the end result.
So, was the Senate leadership wrong for creating a pattern of tax increases? Yes. Did this encourage the primary challenges? Absolutely. Did the primary challenges cost us the majority? I have no doubt that they did. And if you knock off an incumbent you better be damned sure you can hold the seat against the opposition—Stall wasn’t able to do that. If you stage a coup, you better bring enough guns!
So what do we take from all this? I think both sides have to admit they made some mistakes and that the opposing side has some legitimate arguments. Once that’s done, we can look to the future. We can put this mess behind us, find the areas on which we agree, and go beat some Democrats!
http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/marty-williams-still-doesnt-get-it/
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Saxman Predicts Close Race for GOP Senate Nomination - Quasi-Endorsement of Marshall
Below is part of an interview of Delegate Chris Saxman by Chris Graham at the Augusta Free Press. Saxman predicts a close Convention between Gilmore and Marshall and believes Marshall would be a good candidate against Warner, but stops short of an official endorsement.
Graham: … the big thing for you, working with the McCain campaign, is you just need to focus on November – the McCain campaign, also Jim Gilmore, and Bob Goodlatte. I mean, there are some big things coming up this year –
Saxman: “Well, Jim Gilmore isn’t the nominee yet.”
Graham: “He isn’t the nominee yet."
Saxman: “I think it’s going to be a very close election at the convention [the May 30-31 Republican State Convention at the Greater Richmond Convention Center].”
Graham: “Really?”
Saxman: “Oh, absolutely. Everything I’m hearing on the ground, and delegates being signed up, the life issue is very important.”
Graham: “Good, well, I’ve talked with all three of the candidates, also Bob Berry, and I know Bob Marshall as well, a few weeks – well, a few days ago. I guess it was last week we ran that podcast, and all three - especially Bob Marshall, as the top challenger there, seemed very – he had a very good message and, from what I’ve been reading, he is drawing some support, so that’s a very good point.”
Saxman: “Bob Marshall is not to be underestimated. He is strongly principled. He is affable. He is very funny; very witty. … a true gentleman, in every sense of the word. I mean, he’ll be upset with you on one moment, the next he’s making a joke with you. So, he doesn’t take shots personally. That’s a quality people want to find in a candidate.”
Graham: “I had not talked with him until last - when I did that podcast last weekend – and I found the same thing. His reputation might have been different, at least according to the media characterizations of him, but he is exactly as you say.”
Saxman: “Well, that’s what the media does. I mean, the media paints a portrait that ‘he’s controversial.’ Bob is very committed to his beliefs but he doesn’t get personal with them. …and he’s respected in the legislature, for his intelligence, for his, his in-depth knowledge of the rules of the House, and his comedy. I mean, people genuinely like Bob. They’ll disagree with him, but on many issues they do agree with him, especially on the environment, and growth issues in Northern Virginia, where he’s been one of the leaders. So you honestly do have a pro-life, pro-environmental, limited-government candidate to run against Mark Warner should he be the nominee.”
Graham: “Well, thanks for this insight. I’ll pay closer attention even than I have been in the last couple of –”
Saxman: “I think you should. What I’m hearing out of the delegate counts of some of the larger jurisdictions is, it’s going to be close.”
Graham: … the big thing for you, working with the McCain campaign, is you just need to focus on November – the McCain campaign, also Jim Gilmore, and Bob Goodlatte. I mean, there are some big things coming up this year –
Saxman: “Well, Jim Gilmore isn’t the nominee yet.”
Graham: “He isn’t the nominee yet."
Saxman: “I think it’s going to be a very close election at the convention [the May 30-31 Republican State Convention at the Greater Richmond Convention Center].”
Graham: “Really?”
Saxman: “Oh, absolutely. Everything I’m hearing on the ground, and delegates being signed up, the life issue is very important.”
Graham: “Good, well, I’ve talked with all three of the candidates, also Bob Berry, and I know Bob Marshall as well, a few weeks – well, a few days ago. I guess it was last week we ran that podcast, and all three - especially Bob Marshall, as the top challenger there, seemed very – he had a very good message and, from what I’ve been reading, he is drawing some support, so that’s a very good point.”
Saxman: “Bob Marshall is not to be underestimated. He is strongly principled. He is affable. He is very funny; very witty. … a true gentleman, in every sense of the word. I mean, he’ll be upset with you on one moment, the next he’s making a joke with you. So, he doesn’t take shots personally. That’s a quality people want to find in a candidate.”
Graham: “I had not talked with him until last - when I did that podcast last weekend – and I found the same thing. His reputation might have been different, at least according to the media characterizations of him, but he is exactly as you say.”
Saxman: “Well, that’s what the media does. I mean, the media paints a portrait that ‘he’s controversial.’ Bob is very committed to his beliefs but he doesn’t get personal with them. …and he’s respected in the legislature, for his intelligence, for his, his in-depth knowledge of the rules of the House, and his comedy. I mean, people genuinely like Bob. They’ll disagree with him, but on many issues they do agree with him, especially on the environment, and growth issues in Northern Virginia, where he’s been one of the leaders. So you honestly do have a pro-life, pro-environmental, limited-government candidate to run against Mark Warner should he be the nominee.”
Graham: “Well, thanks for this insight. I’ll pay closer attention even than I have been in the last couple of –”
Saxman: “I think you should. What I’m hearing out of the delegate counts of some of the larger jurisdictions is, it’s going to be close.”
Thursday, April 24, 2008
McCain Campaign on Hillary's Win
I got this email from McCain's campaign, analyzing Hillary's PA win. I don't know how widespread the distribution is so I wanted to post it here. It's an interesting read.
To: Interested Parties
From: Rick Davis
Date: April 23, 2008
Re: Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Results
The race for the Democratic Nomination will continue.
Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last night has extended the primary to the next round of contests (Indiana and North Carolina on May 6) and has maintained the competitive nature of the race.
With her 10-point victory, we should expect her poll numbers and resources to increase in the coming days. Primary wins, especially in the 2008 election cycle, have had a direct impact on the national polling numbers for the candidates and when national polling numbers increase, so do campaign donations.
Since last night, the Clinton campaign reportedly raised $10 million dollars online - enough to make a significant dent in upcoming media buys in North Carolina and Indiana. Barack Obama continues to surpass fundraising expectations and will most likely continue to do so. We need help during this period of democratic turmoil so we can build are resources and be ready to fight when the race begins.
Pennsylvania exit polls tell an interesting story that has implications for November.
Even though Hillary Clinton won this primary, Barack Obama is seen as the front runner among Pennsylvania Democrats and is perceived to be the candidate most likely to win the Democratic Party's nomination. Fifty-five percent of Pennsylvania voters say they believe Barack Obama will be the nominee in November. And, one-fifth of Clinton's Pennsylvania supporters believe he will be the nominee in November. So, the victory for Clinton is seen as a bump in the road for Obama, even by some of her true believers.
Exit polls reveal why this poses significant problems for Obama if he becomes the nominee. The most important problem: Clinton voters don't automatically become Obama voters after he becomes the nominee. In fact, Obama leaves large portions of Clinton's coalition on the table in November.
Obama only wins 72% of the Democratic vote in a general election match up among those surveyed last night. Clinton shows her broad coalitional strength and wins 81% in a general election match up against John McCain. A full quarter of the Democrats in Pennsylvania are not willing to cast their ballot for Obama against McCain (15% say they vote McCain and 10% say they stay home), however, Clinton loses only 17% of Democrats (10% for McCain and 7% would not vote). This gap of 8-points would be significant in a general election match up. President Bush lost Pennsylvania by 2-points in 2004, when 41% of the electorate were Democrats. That 8-point gap among Democrats is enough to swing the state the other way (8% of 41% is 2.8-points, turning Pennsylvania red). This dynamic is clearly visible in publicly released surveys; an average of April polls show McCain trailing Obama by an average of 3-points (3 surveys in April) and trailing Clinton by 8-points.
The cracks in Obama's Democratic coalition in Pennsylvania mirror what we saw in Ohio, and those cracks could have implications in November.
Hillary Clinton cleaned up with Union households - like she did in Ohio. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 59% of Union members (Obama 41%). Obama won these voters by significant margins in Wisconsin (+9), but has lost his hold on their vote in both Ohio (Clinton 55% - 43%) and now Pennsylvania.
Clinton did better than Obama with lower income voters. Our targeting and analysis of the 2008 political landscape puts voters who are on the lower economic brackets at the heart of either party's winning coalition. Hillary won at every income level below $150,000, and Obama only won with the wealthiest Pennsylvania voters. Obama's media foibles contributed to his inability to connect to voters who are suffering the real impact of this challenging economic environment.
This is also apparent in the number of voters who feel Clinton is more in touch with their views. Fifty-six percent of Pennsylvania Democrats say Clinton cares about people like them - again a significant switch from earlier contests. Wisconsin exit polls shows Obama had a 12-point advantage on that measure. By the time Ohio held their primary, Clinton had switched the dynamic and led by 12-points.
Clinton won Catholic voters.In Wisconsin, Clinton split the Catholic vote 50%-50% with Obama. Again, she changed the dynamic in Ohio and won Catholics by 27-points (63% - 36%). In Pennsylvania, she increased her margins and won by 38-points (69% - 31%). The strength of this coalition bolsters her argument that Obama would have had problems competing in Michigan and will not be able to carry key Midwestern states in November.
Clinton won Jewish voters.In Pennsylvania, the first state where both candidates competed for a significant block of Jewish voters, Clinton won by 15-points (57% - 43%). Again, the data suggests Jewish voters, a key Democratic coalition, pose a potential problem for Obama.
Clinton increased her margins in suburban and rural areas - without losing ground in urban areas.
Clinton won Pennsylvania suburbs by a 12-point margin and won rural areas by 22-points. And Clinton lost in urban areas by 14-points. This is similar to her Ohio performance. But, it shows an increase in her performance in urban areas from earlier contests (in Wisconsin she lost urban areas by 21-points). Clinton has figured out how to increase her margins among suburban and rural voters and cut into Obama's base of urban voters.
What does that mean for John McCain?
Ultimately most pundits contend that Hillary Clinton still has more than an uphill battle to become the nominee. So, what does this victory mean for John McCain? While the Democratic nomination continues to unfold, our campaign is actively engaged in listening to voters' concerns and sharing John McCain's message with them. Senator McCain has an active schedule in the coming weeks.
Last week, he gave a major economic address where he addressed short term concerns like enacting a summer gas tax holiday, he proposed a new "HOME Plan" to help those who are hurt by the housing crisis and he is proposing a student loan continuity plan to make sure America's college students aren't hurt from the credit crunch. In addition, Senator McCain has spent this week travelling to places many in our nation have forgotten and where our citizens have felt left behind but where hope, innovation and local solutions are helping to lift these communities up. And, next week, Senator McCain will visit various health care facilities and unveil his plans and solutions to help Americans improve access and affordability to good health care. In addition, the campaign is building our organization and resources for the campaign in the fall.
To: Interested Parties
From: Rick Davis
Date: April 23, 2008
Re: Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Results
The race for the Democratic Nomination will continue.
Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last night has extended the primary to the next round of contests (Indiana and North Carolina on May 6) and has maintained the competitive nature of the race.
With her 10-point victory, we should expect her poll numbers and resources to increase in the coming days. Primary wins, especially in the 2008 election cycle, have had a direct impact on the national polling numbers for the candidates and when national polling numbers increase, so do campaign donations.
Since last night, the Clinton campaign reportedly raised $10 million dollars online - enough to make a significant dent in upcoming media buys in North Carolina and Indiana. Barack Obama continues to surpass fundraising expectations and will most likely continue to do so. We need help during this period of democratic turmoil so we can build are resources and be ready to fight when the race begins.
Pennsylvania exit polls tell an interesting story that has implications for November.
Even though Hillary Clinton won this primary, Barack Obama is seen as the front runner among Pennsylvania Democrats and is perceived to be the candidate most likely to win the Democratic Party's nomination. Fifty-five percent of Pennsylvania voters say they believe Barack Obama will be the nominee in November. And, one-fifth of Clinton's Pennsylvania supporters believe he will be the nominee in November. So, the victory for Clinton is seen as a bump in the road for Obama, even by some of her true believers.
Exit polls reveal why this poses significant problems for Obama if he becomes the nominee. The most important problem: Clinton voters don't automatically become Obama voters after he becomes the nominee. In fact, Obama leaves large portions of Clinton's coalition on the table in November.
Obama only wins 72% of the Democratic vote in a general election match up among those surveyed last night. Clinton shows her broad coalitional strength and wins 81% in a general election match up against John McCain. A full quarter of the Democrats in Pennsylvania are not willing to cast their ballot for Obama against McCain (15% say they vote McCain and 10% say they stay home), however, Clinton loses only 17% of Democrats (10% for McCain and 7% would not vote). This gap of 8-points would be significant in a general election match up. President Bush lost Pennsylvania by 2-points in 2004, when 41% of the electorate were Democrats. That 8-point gap among Democrats is enough to swing the state the other way (8% of 41% is 2.8-points, turning Pennsylvania red). This dynamic is clearly visible in publicly released surveys; an average of April polls show McCain trailing Obama by an average of 3-points (3 surveys in April) and trailing Clinton by 8-points.
The cracks in Obama's Democratic coalition in Pennsylvania mirror what we saw in Ohio, and those cracks could have implications in November.
Hillary Clinton cleaned up with Union households - like she did in Ohio. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 59% of Union members (Obama 41%). Obama won these voters by significant margins in Wisconsin (+9), but has lost his hold on their vote in both Ohio (Clinton 55% - 43%) and now Pennsylvania.
Clinton did better than Obama with lower income voters. Our targeting and analysis of the 2008 political landscape puts voters who are on the lower economic brackets at the heart of either party's winning coalition. Hillary won at every income level below $150,000, and Obama only won with the wealthiest Pennsylvania voters. Obama's media foibles contributed to his inability to connect to voters who are suffering the real impact of this challenging economic environment.
This is also apparent in the number of voters who feel Clinton is more in touch with their views. Fifty-six percent of Pennsylvania Democrats say Clinton cares about people like them - again a significant switch from earlier contests. Wisconsin exit polls shows Obama had a 12-point advantage on that measure. By the time Ohio held their primary, Clinton had switched the dynamic and led by 12-points.
Clinton won Catholic voters.In Wisconsin, Clinton split the Catholic vote 50%-50% with Obama. Again, she changed the dynamic in Ohio and won Catholics by 27-points (63% - 36%). In Pennsylvania, she increased her margins and won by 38-points (69% - 31%). The strength of this coalition bolsters her argument that Obama would have had problems competing in Michigan and will not be able to carry key Midwestern states in November.
Clinton won Jewish voters.In Pennsylvania, the first state where both candidates competed for a significant block of Jewish voters, Clinton won by 15-points (57% - 43%). Again, the data suggests Jewish voters, a key Democratic coalition, pose a potential problem for Obama.
Clinton increased her margins in suburban and rural areas - without losing ground in urban areas.
Clinton won Pennsylvania suburbs by a 12-point margin and won rural areas by 22-points. And Clinton lost in urban areas by 14-points. This is similar to her Ohio performance. But, it shows an increase in her performance in urban areas from earlier contests (in Wisconsin she lost urban areas by 21-points). Clinton has figured out how to increase her margins among suburban and rural voters and cut into Obama's base of urban voters.
What does that mean for John McCain?
Ultimately most pundits contend that Hillary Clinton still has more than an uphill battle to become the nominee. So, what does this victory mean for John McCain? While the Democratic nomination continues to unfold, our campaign is actively engaged in listening to voters' concerns and sharing John McCain's message with them. Senator McCain has an active schedule in the coming weeks.
Last week, he gave a major economic address where he addressed short term concerns like enacting a summer gas tax holiday, he proposed a new "HOME Plan" to help those who are hurt by the housing crisis and he is proposing a student loan continuity plan to make sure America's college students aren't hurt from the credit crunch. In addition, Senator McCain has spent this week travelling to places many in our nation have forgotten and where our citizens have felt left behind but where hope, innovation and local solutions are helping to lift these communities up. And, next week, Senator McCain will visit various health care facilities and unveil his plans and solutions to help Americans improve access and affordability to good health care. In addition, the campaign is building our organization and resources for the campaign in the fall.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Postpone the Bond Package
The General Assembly reconvenes this week to consider budget and legislative admendments suggested by the Governor. They also will take up action on a bond package of approximately $1.6 billion. This package includes very worthwhile capital projects. Now however is not the time to advance this bill.
For the four years I recently served in the State Senate we were able to use surplus dollars to meet the state's capital needs. Now that the surpluses are no where to be found the response is well, just borrow the money and let our kids pay it back. Interesting isn't it that when state revenues drop the answer is to float bonds. It is what I hated about HB3202. That transportation bill "solved" transportation by putting out $3.0 billion in bonds for ongoing transportation infrastructure needs.
It has been interesting to me that none of the "conservative/libertarian" bloggers have commented on this bond package. Don't they know once you issue the bonds you have to pay the debt service. The current package considered will be about $150 million per year. That's if the issuance is successful. I guess as long as there is no tax increase to pay for the bonds some are happy. Well let me tell you, once you put the bonds out it takes funds out of your budget for many years regardless of the income picture.
Also this is a terrible time to go into the market with a bond issuance. The termoil in the credit markets have made some high quality bond packages priced far over the norm, hence driving up the cost of debt service.
If you guys, (legislators), have to put this forward at least have it go before the voters in the fall. Then you can make your case that this is a good idea for now. It would also allow me to vote no.
For the four years I recently served in the State Senate we were able to use surplus dollars to meet the state's capital needs. Now that the surpluses are no where to be found the response is well, just borrow the money and let our kids pay it back. Interesting isn't it that when state revenues drop the answer is to float bonds. It is what I hated about HB3202. That transportation bill "solved" transportation by putting out $3.0 billion in bonds for ongoing transportation infrastructure needs.
It has been interesting to me that none of the "conservative/libertarian" bloggers have commented on this bond package. Don't they know once you issue the bonds you have to pay the debt service. The current package considered will be about $150 million per year. That's if the issuance is successful. I guess as long as there is no tax increase to pay for the bonds some are happy. Well let me tell you, once you put the bonds out it takes funds out of your budget for many years regardless of the income picture.
Also this is a terrible time to go into the market with a bond issuance. The termoil in the credit markets have made some high quality bond packages priced far over the norm, hence driving up the cost of debt service.
If you guys, (legislators), have to put this forward at least have it go before the voters in the fall. Then you can make your case that this is a good idea for now. It would also allow me to vote no.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Money Matters
We all wish it didn’t, but money matters in politics. And Jim Gilmore doesn’t have enough of it.
In the recently ended quarter, Gilmore raised just shy of $400,000 while the presumptive Democratic nominee Mark Warner raised nearly $2.5 million. The difference is astounding considering both men are former Governors. Even more disturbing is Gilmore’s cash on hand, just over $200,000. Warner has $4.4 million. That’s a 20-1 difference. Unbelievable! If I were working on the Gilmore campaign, I’d be worried about my next paycheck.
Gilmore’s challenge to the GOP nomination, Delegate Bob Marshall raised around $50,000. But, he is clearly the underdog in this fight and spent 2/3 of the quarter in Session in Richmond.
I know, I haven’t been the nicest to Gilmore on this blog. But this has nothing to do with him personally. As a Republican, I am deeply concerned as to what this says about the race. And it tells me we are in trouble.
So why does money matter? Gilmore has to do two things to win. First, his high negatives (approaching 50%) mean he needs to drive a positive message about himself. He needs to convince the voters that he’s not such a bad guy. Second, he needs to attack Mark Warner’s record while not driving his own negatives even higher. And both take money. A lot of money.
A candidate for the Board of Supervisors can shake every hand. He doesn’t need much money to win. It’s all retail politics. A State Senate campaign is about 50/50. But a US Senate campaign is nearly 100% wholesale politics—mainly mail and TV ads. All but a very few will decide who to vote for having never meet either candidate.
I am undecided in the contest between Gilmore and Marshall. I’d like a third choice but with every passing day, that becomes less likely. When we go to nominate our candidate, we as Republicans need to give serious thought to Gilmore’s lackluster fundraising. As a former Governor and former RNC Chairman, he should be doing much, much better than this. If the situation doesn’t get remarkably better, Gilmore’s chances of beating Warner will get even worse.
In the recently ended quarter, Gilmore raised just shy of $400,000 while the presumptive Democratic nominee Mark Warner raised nearly $2.5 million. The difference is astounding considering both men are former Governors. Even more disturbing is Gilmore’s cash on hand, just over $200,000. Warner has $4.4 million. That’s a 20-1 difference. Unbelievable! If I were working on the Gilmore campaign, I’d be worried about my next paycheck.
Gilmore’s challenge to the GOP nomination, Delegate Bob Marshall raised around $50,000. But, he is clearly the underdog in this fight and spent 2/3 of the quarter in Session in Richmond.
I know, I haven’t been the nicest to Gilmore on this blog. But this has nothing to do with him personally. As a Republican, I am deeply concerned as to what this says about the race. And it tells me we are in trouble.
So why does money matter? Gilmore has to do two things to win. First, his high negatives (approaching 50%) mean he needs to drive a positive message about himself. He needs to convince the voters that he’s not such a bad guy. Second, he needs to attack Mark Warner’s record while not driving his own negatives even higher. And both take money. A lot of money.
A candidate for the Board of Supervisors can shake every hand. He doesn’t need much money to win. It’s all retail politics. A State Senate campaign is about 50/50. But a US Senate campaign is nearly 100% wholesale politics—mainly mail and TV ads. All but a very few will decide who to vote for having never meet either candidate.
I am undecided in the contest between Gilmore and Marshall. I’d like a third choice but with every passing day, that becomes less likely. When we go to nominate our candidate, we as Republicans need to give serious thought to Gilmore’s lackluster fundraising. As a former Governor and former RNC Chairman, he should be doing much, much better than this. If the situation doesn’t get remarkably better, Gilmore’s chances of beating Warner will get even worse.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
McDonnell, Bowling, Cuccinelli, errrrr, Brownlee?
We've got our 2009 Republican ticket, right? Let's see, it's Bob McDonnell for Governor, Bill Bolling for Lt Governor and Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General. Well, not so fast. I am hearing that Western District US Attorney John Brownlee is seriously considering a run for Attorney General. And I couldn't be happier to hear it.
Competition within the party for our statewide offices is a good thing. Not the nasty name calling and personal attacks like we've seen of late. I mean a good, healthy race. I hate the idea of locking into a ticket over a year away from the Convention. Lets have a race and a discussion of issues. It would seem the most likely place for that to happen is with the AG spot. And John Brownlee may be close to announcing his run.
Competition within the party for our statewide offices is a good thing. Not the nasty name calling and personal attacks like we've seen of late. I mean a good, healthy race. I hate the idea of locking into a ticket over a year away from the Convention. Lets have a race and a discussion of issues. It would seem the most likely place for that to happen is with the AG spot. And John Brownlee may be close to announcing his run.
Roanoke City YP Forum Recap
As I mentioned on this Blog earlier, 3 area Young Professional groups hosted a Forum for Roanoke City Council candidates last night. As the President of a participating group (The Roanoke Jaycees) and an organizer, I was very pleased with the event and want to congratulate all that were involved. Now for the recap.
To me, there are really 5 serious contenders for Council (3 Spots open) and 2 for Mayor. Brian Wishneff was absent so I will focus on the 6 candidates in attendance.
To my surprise, I actually found Mayoral candidate David Bowers to be a likable guy. You may remember a post I wrote several weeks ago denouncing some in the Republican party who wanted to endorse Mr. Bowers. I still don't think that is a good idea, but I was surprised that I actually liked some of what Bowers had to say. He seemed to have a handle on the issues. That being said, I still have serious disagreements with him on many issues and cannot think of him as the change candidate in this race--simply because has already served as Mayor for 8 years.
Mayor Nelson Harris also demonstrated an understanding of the challenges facing our City and seemed in touch with the young folks in the crowd.
Looking at the Council candidates, I thought Court Rosen stood out from the rest. He spoke intelligently about the issues and, I think, was on the same page with most of the Young Professionals in the audience. This was his crowd and he did well. I was also impressed with Anita Price. She doesn't come across as a politician, which may be a good thing, but again, she presented her ideas well and has the background to deal with what I see as the biggest challenge facing Roanoke--the schools.
Sherman Lea didn't make an impression really. As a sitting Council member, he knows the issues, but I didn't feel the same connection to the audience that the others had.
I consider Valerie Garner a contender since she has aligned herself with Bowers, who has a chance to win. Garner was pleasant enough, but did not come across as someone who will fight for issues of concern to the younger demographic. She seemed more "old guard". She actually answered my question about downtown living (should we have more affordable options like apartments and what can the City do to encourage it). She supports the concept but would have opposed incentives for the Hancock building--the developers were going to turn this historic building into lower margin apartments if they received City incentives. Without them, it's another high end condo development. I believe this is an important project that deserves incentives.
All 9 candidates were given a chance to talk about the Virginia Museum of Transportation--a close partner of the Jaycees. To my delight, all voiced support for helping the Museum.
To me, there are really 5 serious contenders for Council (3 Spots open) and 2 for Mayor. Brian Wishneff was absent so I will focus on the 6 candidates in attendance.
To my surprise, I actually found Mayoral candidate David Bowers to be a likable guy. You may remember a post I wrote several weeks ago denouncing some in the Republican party who wanted to endorse Mr. Bowers. I still don't think that is a good idea, but I was surprised that I actually liked some of what Bowers had to say. He seemed to have a handle on the issues. That being said, I still have serious disagreements with him on many issues and cannot think of him as the change candidate in this race--simply because has already served as Mayor for 8 years.
Mayor Nelson Harris also demonstrated an understanding of the challenges facing our City and seemed in touch with the young folks in the crowd.
Looking at the Council candidates, I thought Court Rosen stood out from the rest. He spoke intelligently about the issues and, I think, was on the same page with most of the Young Professionals in the audience. This was his crowd and he did well. I was also impressed with Anita Price. She doesn't come across as a politician, which may be a good thing, but again, she presented her ideas well and has the background to deal with what I see as the biggest challenge facing Roanoke--the schools.
Sherman Lea didn't make an impression really. As a sitting Council member, he knows the issues, but I didn't feel the same connection to the audience that the others had.
I consider Valerie Garner a contender since she has aligned herself with Bowers, who has a chance to win. Garner was pleasant enough, but did not come across as someone who will fight for issues of concern to the younger demographic. She seemed more "old guard". She actually answered my question about downtown living (should we have more affordable options like apartments and what can the City do to encourage it). She supports the concept but would have opposed incentives for the Hancock building--the developers were going to turn this historic building into lower margin apartments if they received City incentives. Without them, it's another high end condo development. I believe this is an important project that deserves incentives.
All 9 candidates were given a chance to talk about the Virginia Museum of Transportation--a close partner of the Jaycees. To my delight, all voiced support for helping the Museum.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Phone Booth Republicans – ROUND 2
I had a feeling yesterday’s post would stir something up. And boy was I right. STD and SWAC Girl both lashed out at me. Check it out: http://swacgirl.blogspot.com/ and http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/.
I knew the blogosphere was a rough and tumble place. The nastiest remarks ever made about me as an elected official were made in the blog world, by fellow Republicans in last year’s primary. And yet, I am still surprised that many of the comments and criticisms on this blog are directed at me personally and not at my ideas. Chris Green, I mean STD, is one of the worst offenders. He tends to focus more on who I am and less on what I say. At least I have the courage to post as myself and not some made up screen name. Then again, that personal touch has given many the opportunity to attack me.
So it seems SWAC and STD completely missed the point of my post. Some how they have determined that I was slamming party volunteers. Get real. Of course I wasn’t. It’s the grassroots party members who are suffering through this mess. I was slamming some in the Augusta County GOP leadership for their lack there of.
NEWS FLASH: Emmett Hanger won the Primary
NEWS FLASH: Emmett Hanger brought more people out and won the Chairmanship at the Mass Meeting
Oh, I know, those people aren’t “real” Republicans. Hogwash. In fact, they are the Republican majority—that’s why they won. But the vocal minority (STD, SWAC, etc) cannot accept defeat. They continue to feed the flames of discontent. Instead of accepting the outcome and committing themselves to healing the wounds within the party, they keep on picking at the scab.
Some have said Senator Hanger declared war on the grassroots. I don’t know if that’s true. After my primary loss last year, I personally decided to work with the party faithful, not against them.
What happened in Augusta is a black eye for us all. Hopefully RPV will intervene and oversee a new mass meeting. Maybe then the results can be accepted and this can be put behind us.
I knew the blogosphere was a rough and tumble place. The nastiest remarks ever made about me as an elected official were made in the blog world, by fellow Republicans in last year’s primary. And yet, I am still surprised that many of the comments and criticisms on this blog are directed at me personally and not at my ideas. Chris Green, I mean STD, is one of the worst offenders. He tends to focus more on who I am and less on what I say. At least I have the courage to post as myself and not some made up screen name. Then again, that personal touch has given many the opportunity to attack me.
So it seems SWAC and STD completely missed the point of my post. Some how they have determined that I was slamming party volunteers. Get real. Of course I wasn’t. It’s the grassroots party members who are suffering through this mess. I was slamming some in the Augusta County GOP leadership for their lack there of.
NEWS FLASH: Emmett Hanger won the Primary
NEWS FLASH: Emmett Hanger brought more people out and won the Chairmanship at the Mass Meeting
Oh, I know, those people aren’t “real” Republicans. Hogwash. In fact, they are the Republican majority—that’s why they won. But the vocal minority (STD, SWAC, etc) cannot accept defeat. They continue to feed the flames of discontent. Instead of accepting the outcome and committing themselves to healing the wounds within the party, they keep on picking at the scab.
Some have said Senator Hanger declared war on the grassroots. I don’t know if that’s true. After my primary loss last year, I personally decided to work with the party faithful, not against them.
What happened in Augusta is a black eye for us all. Hopefully RPV will intervene and oversee a new mass meeting. Maybe then the results can be accepted and this can be put behind us.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Phone Booth Republicans
How many Republicans can you fit in a phone booth? OK, I know, we don’t really have phone booths anymore, what with cell phones and all. But give it a thought. Just a handful, right? Well, a handful of Republicans is what some in Augusta County seem to want. A handful in power that is. If you haven’t heard what happened at the Augusta County Mass Meeting last week, read this article: http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008804110324
Kurt Michael (who lead the revolt against Senator Emmett Hanger) was running for re-election as Chairman. He was originally opposed by 5 others, but 4 dropped out leaving Larry Roller as the only opposition. Roller beat Micheal 141-103. That’s right. After the failed coup of Hanger, Michael and his allies lost the Chairmanship. You’d think they would get the message. But if it were only that simple.
It seems that the Temporary Chair of the meeting made several mistakes, one of which was failing to adjourn the meeting. After Roller and his supporters left, Michael declared the first meeting invalid, conducted a second meeting and “won” the Chairmanship on a 57-2 vote.
Anyone who has been involved in politics for a while knows that these mass meetings are never perfect. They are run by volunteers. Not professionals. As a party leader, Kurt Michael (and others) knew that mistakes were being made. Instead of acting the statesmen and offering to help, they waited until they could take advantage of the parliamentary technicality and defy the will of the majority. Some leader, huh?
So you ask, is this the way to build a party? Is this the way to heal old wounds? We all know the answer. But I’ve come to realize something. Michael and crowd don’t care. They never have. And they don’t really care about ideology. What they care about is power. And they will do anything, including the destruction of their own party, to get it and keep it. Sadly, the same power grab is happening in the Sixth District Committee, with Jim Crosby challenging current Chairman Fred Anderson for the top spot.
I attended Roanoke County’s Mass Meeting (my home County) on Saturday and things could not have been more different. Two people were vying for Chairman. Both were cordial and respectful of the other. Was the meeting perfect from a parliamentary standpoint? Of course not. But we worked through it and elected a Chairman.
Kurt Michael (who lead the revolt against Senator Emmett Hanger) was running for re-election as Chairman. He was originally opposed by 5 others, but 4 dropped out leaving Larry Roller as the only opposition. Roller beat Micheal 141-103. That’s right. After the failed coup of Hanger, Michael and his allies lost the Chairmanship. You’d think they would get the message. But if it were only that simple.
It seems that the Temporary Chair of the meeting made several mistakes, one of which was failing to adjourn the meeting. After Roller and his supporters left, Michael declared the first meeting invalid, conducted a second meeting and “won” the Chairmanship on a 57-2 vote.
Anyone who has been involved in politics for a while knows that these mass meetings are never perfect. They are run by volunteers. Not professionals. As a party leader, Kurt Michael (and others) knew that mistakes were being made. Instead of acting the statesmen and offering to help, they waited until they could take advantage of the parliamentary technicality and defy the will of the majority. Some leader, huh?
So you ask, is this the way to build a party? Is this the way to heal old wounds? We all know the answer. But I’ve come to realize something. Michael and crowd don’t care. They never have. And they don’t really care about ideology. What they care about is power. And they will do anything, including the destruction of their own party, to get it and keep it. Sadly, the same power grab is happening in the Sixth District Committee, with Jim Crosby challenging current Chairman Fred Anderson for the top spot.
I attended Roanoke County’s Mass Meeting (my home County) on Saturday and things could not have been more different. Two people were vying for Chairman. Both were cordial and respectful of the other. Was the meeting perfect from a parliamentary standpoint? Of course not. But we worked through it and elected a Chairman.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Young Professional Groups to Host City Council Forum
Three area Young Professional groups will host a Forum for Roanoke City Council elections on Tuesday, April 15th at 202 Market Downtown. The reception starts at 5:30, the forum at 6:30. The Roanoke Jaycees, Valley Forward and NewVaConnects have worked together to organize and host this event. It's non-partisan, free and open to everyone. If you care about the future of our City, please make time to attend!
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Why Run for Roanoke City Council?
I’ve always wondered why people want to run for Roanoke City Council. It seems to be more of a political sink hole than a stepping stone. And yet, every two years a multitude of candidates run.
On Monday, the Roanoke Times ran a profile piece on those seeking seats on Council and the four running for Mayor. I was struck by one thing. Several of the candidates (not all) either have some type of government job or work for a company dependent on government dollars. Sherman Lea works for the VA Department of Corrections. Anita Price works in public education. Brian Wishneff owns an economic development consulting company. Who hires economic development consultants? Roanoke City has certainly employed its share. Wishneff is also a part time professor at Virginia Tech. Again, tax dollars.
Recently appointed Council Member Alvin Nash (whom I know and like) is the President of the Blue Ridge Housing Development Corp, also dependent on government funding.
Those dependent on government funding for their living are clearly the most interested in serving on Roanoke City Council. This dual interest is what leads to the questions about conflicts of interests. It’s only natural and almost impossible to avoid, even if someone hasn’t done anything unethical or wrong. Just today, the Times ran an editorial questioning why Council chose Nash, citing the potential conflict of interest as the reason.
It is my hope that the future brings more candidates from the private sector to serve in local government. But again, they don’t have as much self interest in doing so.
On Monday, the Roanoke Times ran a profile piece on those seeking seats on Council and the four running for Mayor. I was struck by one thing. Several of the candidates (not all) either have some type of government job or work for a company dependent on government dollars. Sherman Lea works for the VA Department of Corrections. Anita Price works in public education. Brian Wishneff owns an economic development consulting company. Who hires economic development consultants? Roanoke City has certainly employed its share. Wishneff is also a part time professor at Virginia Tech. Again, tax dollars.
Recently appointed Council Member Alvin Nash (whom I know and like) is the President of the Blue Ridge Housing Development Corp, also dependent on government funding.
Those dependent on government funding for their living are clearly the most interested in serving on Roanoke City Council. This dual interest is what leads to the questions about conflicts of interests. It’s only natural and almost impossible to avoid, even if someone hasn’t done anything unethical or wrong. Just today, the Times ran an editorial questioning why Council chose Nash, citing the potential conflict of interest as the reason.
It is my hope that the future brings more candidates from the private sector to serve in local government. But again, they don’t have as much self interest in doing so.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Frederick and Hager Battle over GA Endorsements
I just got an email from RPV Chairman John Hager addressing an email that Jeff Frederick sent out listing General Assembly endorsements. Apparently, Frederick listed members of the GA that are actually supporting Hager. Hager specifically lists Senators Vogel, Stuart and Wager as mentioned by Frederick, but supporting him.
How does a mistake like this happen? It's hard to imagine a candidate for any office doing this on purpose, knowing you will be caught. Maybe it speaks more to the disorganization of the Frederick campaign?
Below is the Hager email. I don't have Frederick's. Maybe a reader could post it?
A number of you have called and expressed some shock and dismay at an email that Jeff Frederick sent out yesterday. In his email he listed endorsements of some members of the General Assembly.
There was only one problem - Jeff didn't bother to check with them first. Many of the people on the list are supporters of mine. In fact, at least two of them had already told him that they would not support him.
For the last few weeks, I have listened to accusations from Jeff Frederick about my leadership, the staff at RPV, the district leaders that support my reelection, and my allegiance to this party. Each of his accusations is laughable, and we dismissed them as his typical rant. But when he is willing to blatantly mislead Republicans in Virginia by claiming false endorsements, enough is enough.
Senators Vogel, Stuart, and Wagner are just a few of the individuals that my opponent misused their names. They have all confirmed that they are with me. They know how hard we have worked to elect Republicans. They know that the last thing we need at this critical time is on the job training.
The Republican Party had some problems that I addressed as soon as I became Chairman. We are now stronger than ever and ready to face the Democrats. We are financially secure. We have a successful communications strategy that emphasizes the unity of the Republican Party. I have negotiated that the Coordinated McCain RNC/RPV Victory Campaign for Virginia be run out of our offices, unlike previous years. We are identifying new Republican voters across the state and passing the information to District and Unit Chairs to increase the Republicans in our party.
For anyone to say that we have failed, is an insult to every hard working Republican in Virginia.
I look forward to continuing to work for you in the future.
Sincerely,
John Hager
How does a mistake like this happen? It's hard to imagine a candidate for any office doing this on purpose, knowing you will be caught. Maybe it speaks more to the disorganization of the Frederick campaign?
Below is the Hager email. I don't have Frederick's. Maybe a reader could post it?
A number of you have called and expressed some shock and dismay at an email that Jeff Frederick sent out yesterday. In his email he listed endorsements of some members of the General Assembly.
There was only one problem - Jeff didn't bother to check with them first. Many of the people on the list are supporters of mine. In fact, at least two of them had already told him that they would not support him.
For the last few weeks, I have listened to accusations from Jeff Frederick about my leadership, the staff at RPV, the district leaders that support my reelection, and my allegiance to this party. Each of his accusations is laughable, and we dismissed them as his typical rant. But when he is willing to blatantly mislead Republicans in Virginia by claiming false endorsements, enough is enough.
Senators Vogel, Stuart, and Wagner are just a few of the individuals that my opponent misused their names. They have all confirmed that they are with me. They know how hard we have worked to elect Republicans. They know that the last thing we need at this critical time is on the job training.
The Republican Party had some problems that I addressed as soon as I became Chairman. We are now stronger than ever and ready to face the Democrats. We are financially secure. We have a successful communications strategy that emphasizes the unity of the Republican Party. I have negotiated that the Coordinated McCain RNC/RPV Victory Campaign for Virginia be run out of our offices, unlike previous years. We are identifying new Republican voters across the state and passing the information to District and Unit Chairs to increase the Republicans in our party.
For anyone to say that we have failed, is an insult to every hard working Republican in Virginia.
I look forward to continuing to work for you in the future.
Sincerely,
John Hager
Earth Hour, Cats and Living in the Dark
No electricity at night. This may be the next step to save the planet. Can someone send this to Al Gore......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKSeeltdF0k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKSeeltdF0k
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Rasoul UPDATE
According to the State Board of Elections, Sam Rasoul, Democratic hopeful in the 6th Congressional District, voted in the 2005 Republican Primary. In doing so, he skipped voting in the Democratic Primary the same day between Chap Peterson and Leslie Byrne. He also did NOT vote in the 2006 Democratic Primary between Miller and Webb.
This certainly doesn't prove that Rasoul has been and maybe still is a Republican, but it does bring into question his dedication to the Democratic Party. When will Rasoul address this issue?
This certainly doesn't prove that Rasoul has been and maybe still is a Republican, but it does bring into question his dedication to the Democratic Party. When will Rasoul address this issue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
