Clintonism Goes Down in Virginia

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 2009-06-13 | Fred Barnes

[rabscuttle385]

But Republicans face a tougher opponent in the gubernatorial race this fall.

BY FRED BARNES

Alexandria, Va.

Nothing comes easy for the GOP these days. For months, Republican Robert McDonnell was the clear favorite to be elected governor of Virginia this fall. And for nearly as long, his Democratic opponent seemed likely to be Terry McAuliffe -- a former Democratic national chairman, close pal of Bill Clinton, native New Yorker, and grating personality. None of those things are assets in the Old Dominion.

But on Tuesday, the GOP's confidence evaporated. In a rout, Democratic primary voters rejected Mr. McAuliffe and nominated a rural state senator, Creigh Deeds, who has the potential to win over Republican voters.

Many Democrats had resigned themselves to losing the governorship this year, but now they "are coming out of the primary in better shape than they ever expected," says Democratic pollster Tom Jensen. Mr. Deeds will soon be riding a wave of favorable publicity that could put him even or slightly ahead of Mr. McDonnell, who resigned as the state's attorney general earlier this year to run for governor. A GOP strategist who didn't want to be named put it this way: "The press loves his story."

Nonetheless, in Mr. McDonnell, Republicans have a strong candidate. He beat Mr. Deeds by 323 votes in the election for attorney general in 2005. It was a race that "Deeds should have won," says Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. "There was a tide against Republicans."

The political stakes in this race are high: Republicans, having lost control of Congress and the White House in the past two years, are desperate for a meaningful victory. A loss in Virginia, once reliably Republican, would be demoralizing. It would solidify Democrats as the majority party in America.

[rabscuttle385]

This Wahoo is for McDonnell.

[rabscuttle385]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124484786529811351.html

[rabscuttle385]

ping!

[RockinRight]

A Dem winning the Governorship in one generally GOP state doesn’t mean that “it’s over for Republicans” or whatever.

I will say this: If McDonnell does win in VA - the GOP will take back Congress.

If he loses, then we still have a shot, but probably just the House.

[Gene Eric]

>> In a rout, Democratic primary voters rejected Mr. McAuliffe and nominated a rural state senator, Creigh Deeds, who has the potential to win over Republican voters.

Reagan Democrats?

[RockinRight]

FWIW, I predict it’s McDonnell in a squeaker.

[Talisker]

Clintonism Goes Down in Virginia

A needle indicating an earthquake.

[Feline_AIDS]

Deeds isn’t winning my vote in November.

I think McDonnell’s got it. Deeds seems like an idiot—like a caricature of a stupid politician—like less-drunk-more-simpleton Joe Biden. I hope there’s a good debate.

[fieldmarshaldj]

We can’t win back the Senate in 2010, too many seats to win to reach 51 and not enough viable candidates, targets or $$.

[RockinRight]

Probably right - but getting it to about 51-49 is possible.

[RockinRight]

51D 49R I mean.

[When do we get liberated?]

As a Virginia voter, I will be able to join this fight, 20 dead people may vote the other way, but I will help.

[yongin]

In a way, the Va Dem primary was like the Presidential primary last year. McAwful was Hillary. A candidate who felt entitled to the nomination. Deeds was Obama. The Dem voters went for the more electable candidate. However despite the media fawning for Deeds, he did not inspire voters to the polls. Priamry turnout was pathetic.

McDonnell has 2 things going for him that the past GOP candidates didn’t have.

1) McDonnell is Catholic. Thus can’t be so easily tied to Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell.

2) McDonnell has ties to two regions that the GOP lost support. Fairfax and Tidewater. If McDonnell could hold down the Dem margins in those regions, then he will have a shot at winning.

[RockinRight]

Isn’t “Catholic” still a bad word in the rural South?

[stboz]

What a gas....take back Congress and tell Zero to shove it up.....

[yongin]

Being Jewish doesn’t hurt Cantor in Va. However, I fear that being identified as a rural Baptist Republican is a turnoff to suburban voters at this time. Kilgore ran as the rural SW candidate and attempted to villify Kaine as the NoVa candidate. Kilgore did very poorly in the vote rich region of NoVa. The GOP ticket looks great. McDonnell, Bollings, and the AG candidate have ties to NoVa. We should be not writing off regions.

[bray]

After 2 yrs of recession, anything is possible. Obamonomics fatigue is starting to set in.

Pray for America and Our Troops

[Dooderbutt]

Clintonism Goes Down in Virginia

That has got to be the funniest thing I have heard n a while.

[fieldmarshaldj]

If we get to 43, it will be a miracle. We could literally slip to 34 (losing FL, KY, MO, NH, NC, OH) if we fail to dislodge a single Dem incumbent and hold our vulnerable or retiring members seats. But we will not get to 49 (short of nearly every Dem Senator sitting in a state with a GOP Governor capable of appointing a successor dying at once).

The Dems just aren’t retiring, and we have a VERY poor record at defeating Dem Senate incumbents (they have a far easier time at knocking off ours, having taken out 10 in just the past two cycles). We got ZERO in 2006 and 2008, not a single Senate incumbent from the opposite party defeated or winning any open seats. Our last year we won anything was in 2004 (when we took 5 open Dem seats: Mel Martinez (FL), Johnny Isakson (GA), David Vitter (LA), Richard Burr (NC), Jim DeMint (SC)), but we still only beat ONE Democrat incumbent, that being Dem leader Daschle in SD with John Thune. Even in 2002, we only beat 2 Dem incumbents (Saxby Chambliss (GA) over Max Cleland and Jim Talent (MO) over the Widder Carnahan), the most we’ve beaten since. Even in 1994, were it not for the rash of Dem retirements (for which we won every single vacancy), we’d not have won the Senate, since we still only beat a paltry 2 that year as well (in PA & TN).

But beating 9 and holding all our vulnerables and open seats ? That would take a miracle. Even if we hold those 6 I cited at the start, we’d only likely be able to take out (at best), Reid in NV and Dodd in CT (IF he is renominated, and if the GOP stays united after the primary). We could take down the appointee Bennet in CO (but there’s no settled candidate) and perhaps the Biden open in DE, where the seat-warmer isn’t running (and even at that, Mike Castle, who will be 71, and is a VERY liberal RINO is sadly the party’s sole hope), IL’s is another (but we’re very weak there) but Burriss is likely to be defeated, and any Dem will be favored, as is NY (but it’s still NY), and PA (depending upon if Specter is nominated by the Dems), and lastly if Byrd dies in WV giving us an opening, but that’s it. So if we swept all of those and held ours, that’s 48, but more likely 43 is our best bet for a highest likely number. 2012 will have a lot of fluke upsets from ‘06 that will be better targets for us to get back to 51 again. Getting to 43 in ‘10 will be a good jumping-off point for ‘12, and we need that just for a filibuster. But we do need to improve upon and get to matching the Dems successes at taking down Senate incumbents to make that the reality. We can’t just wait for them to retire, or we’ll be in the minority a LONG time.

[Brad from Tennessee]

[. . .on May 22, the Washington Post endorsed Mr. Deeds, notably because he supports a 30% hike in gasoline taxes.]

This gas tax would impact everybody but particularly the bottom half of the socioeconomic spectrum which includes a big chunk of Democrats. This could make some good TV and radio commercials as gas prices climb.

[Cowboy Bob]

I can’t believe they put “Clinton” and “goes down” in the same sentence.

[princeofdarkness]

The economy would have to be super-duper in the tank like for instance 12% unemployment and 10%+ inflation for the GOP to take the Senate(e.g. 1980). However, we are not going to lose seats in the Senate. More than likely we will get up to 45 or 46 in 2010.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Our biggest problem is lack of leadership, and when you have idiots like McConnell and Cornyn salivating over liberal cretins with major skeletons in their closet like Crist, that just underscores what we’re up against. This isn’t 1980 anymore, unfortunately.

[Impy]

The Senate could easily be a disaster even if 2010 is a good year.

The GOP better learn how to beat incumbents. 1980 was the last time more than 2 incumbent rats were iced in one cycle.

[fieldmarshaldj]

That’s why I see it only likely we’ll take out two (IF we do well), which still means we only get to 42 if we hold all our vulnerables and open seats.

[yongin]

2012 won’t be a good year for picking up Senate seats.

Possible vulnerable Dem Senators include:

Jim Webb
Bob Casey
Claire McCaskill
Sherrod Brown
Bob Menedez

I think these vulnerable Dem Senators will be insulated by the False One on top of the ticket.

[fieldmarshaldj]

‘12 and ‘14. But I expect some Dems currently in the Senate to not be around by then. Think how old some of them are. Byrd, Kennedy and Lautenberg will probably all be dead, perhaps Johnson of SD, too. HI’s Akaka and Inouye turn 90 in ‘14, so they may be gone, too. Several others will be past 75. ‘12 will also have members that escaped in ‘06 that should’ve gone down (such as Stabenow, Cantwell, Bill Nelson & Ben Nelson, etc.). Gillibrand of NY, presuming she is nominated, has to run TWO campaigns, in ‘10 for the last two years of Hillary’s term, and again in ‘12 for a full 6-year term.

It actually becomes problematic managing a supermajority of 60 or more Senators, because you have members jostling for power and attention, for which there is never enough of. Many newcomers will realize it will take decades to reach a powerful committee chairmanship, and a lot don’t want to spend a quarter-century to reach that point (especially if they can just serve 12-18 years, retire, and get filthy rich as lobbyists), and others just want to use it as a stepping stone and get up and out as quickly as possible (John Edwards & Hillary Clinton).

You often have (especially amongst Dems) infighting between two Senators of the same party from a given state fighting for the superior position. Often times, you have Senators from differing parties from a given state that get along a lot better than the same party, since neither is battling the other for supremacy within the party (the other wouldn’t be messing with his or her colleague’s “turf”).

The optimum number for a party to manage is probably around 55 members. But the Dems have an easier time exceeding that number than we do, simply because we don’t do what it takes to surpass that number. We had a large farm team of Governors in the ‘90s that could’ve stepped up in states with Dem Senators, and the bulk of them chose not to do it. We need not be at the paltry 40 we’re at now had we played hardball with these guys and reminded them of their duties to the party and country, but the Senate GOP tacticians are absolutely incompetent and out of touch with the base.

[VA Voter]

THe crossover vote against McAuliffe was probably massive. There is no party registration in Va. As the Mrs. and I were voting for Deeds, we spied one of our conservative neighbors was also driving a stake through McAuliffe’s heart.

[Liz]

You'd think McAuliffe would know that having the Clintons campaigning for you is the kiss of death. Most of the candidates they campaign for lose.

Remember.....the Clintons campaigned for Kathleen Kennedy in Maryland's gubernatorial election of 2002? Even though Maryland traditionally votes Democratic and had not elected a Republican Governor in almost 40 years, Townsend lost the race to Ehrlich who became only the seventh Republican governor in state history, resulting in heavy criticism directed at Townsend from many party activists.

She famously backed Hillary for president.

[Corin Stormhands]

Tim Kaine is Catholic.

[Grampa Dave]

It seems in my old recall ability that basically every candidate Bill Clinton supported has been destroyed at the polls.

Don’t forget Bill’s wife getting her large Ar$e kicked by 0b0z0 in the last presidential primaries.

[Clintonfatigued]

True. Winning New York probably requires getting George Pataki to run (he’s open, but that’s all). In North Dakota, it looks like John Hoeven won’t run. I don’t forsee Linda Lingle running against Dan Inoute in Hawaii, either. Too bad.

I don’t know what to think about Kentucky. Jim Bunning has been so erratic, he’s making observers dizzy. We have a shot at unseating Blanche Lambert Lincoln, but the field remains fluid. Mega-wealthy RINO Carly Fiorina would have an outside shot at unseating Barbara Boxer, but that’s it. The race against Harry Reid is also fluid. Anyone who runs against him could be indicted for something or other. Recently, ex-Congerssman Mark Green was polled in a hypothetical race against Russell Feingold (who led comfortable), but I’m not aware of any moves Green has made to run.

Recruiting should be better this time than the last two. In 2006 and 2008, leading Republcians saw how the wind was blowing and stayed indoors.

[Tempest]

So the media inserted a new left-wing puppet to do their bidding.

[phillyfanatic]

Deeds will do as all Dems do: talk conserv in the primary and even in the general but when elected, will rule like all the other Blue state guvs with taxing and spending. McDonnell is the real thing but it will take a huge turnout of all like minded people to overcome liberal N.Va.

[BillyBoy]

I don't like to be overly pessimistic (Corin Stormhands has a point about Doom-n-Gloom freepers doing more harm than good), but Field's analysis that our prospects for gaining Senate seats are pretty slim is probably correct.

Illinois will be a real long shot. Our best case scenario (and probably only scenario of electing a decent Republican Senator) is a Roland Burris (D) vs. Eric Wallace (R) general election race, where Burris barely wins the RAT primary in a crowded field of eight or so big name Dems (Hynes, Schakowsky, Gionnolis, Kennedy, Bill Daley, etc.) thanks to the Chicago RAT machine vote being divided. Then Eric Wallace wins the GOP primary, preferably by taking out RINO turd Mark Kirk in a two-way race.

Eric Wallace is sort of the Herman Cain ('member him?) of Illinois, a very successful private sector businessman who is well known for his conservative activism and efforts to reform the GOP. He hasn't officially announced yet but been laying the groundwork for several months to be the anti-Kirk, anti-establishment choice in the U.S. Senate primary.

Part of the reason for Kirk's constant delay on announcing his 2010 plans is probably because he's going through a messy divorce now, along with the fact he does not want to end up in any situation where he would face off against Lisa Madigan in a general election. It seems the light of a Kirk Senate candidacy are dimming. You will note this recent Illinois Review thread on Kirk's marriage:

Sunday, June 07, 2009
Kirks to officially split Monday

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/06/kirks-to-officially-split-monday.html

BTW, Kirk's soon-to-be-ex is described as "significantly to the left of her husband" and allegedly that was part of the reason for divorce. Considering the "moderate" Mark Kirk prides himself on getting rated to the left on Obama on several issues, I have to wonder just how nutty his wife is. Was Mrs. Kirk Joe Stalin in drag? No wonder Kirk's gone off the deep end lately.

Also, Wallace wrote an EXCELLENT piece about the so-called "pragmatic" types running the national party who throw conservatives under the bus in RAT states so they can run Dem-lite candidates instead. Wallace makes a great point here: Cornyn and the GOP leadership say the party is a "big tent" and "has no litmus test" but they do seem to have a litmus test in RAT states, and that's no conservatives need apply. Good stuff. If I had know about the article back in March, I would have posted it on FR:

The Party of Principles? by Eric M. Wallace, Ph.D.

Some other sites about Wallace:

http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/profile/EricMWallace

http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/profile/EricMWallace

Freeper PhilCollins just sent me an email the other day confirming that Wallace has set a date when he will officially kick off his U.S. Senate campaign. Bottom line? We face a huge uphill battle in 2010 and here's one state where there's one conservative running and we need to get behind him. Wallace vs. Burris could be what the IL GOP had HOPED Keyes vs. Obama would be.

[Clintonfatigued]

Does Eric Wallace have any kind of name I.D. in Illinois?

[DanZanRyu]

Rasmusseen says 66% of IL voters will vote automatically against Burris. So Burris is DOA in the primary. Pat Quinn has a 55% approval rating from IL voters. I doubt Princess Madigan challenges Quinn.

If Mark Kirk’s wife is more liberal than him, then she go the Dawn Gibbons way. The GOP Governor of NV, Jim Gibbons, went thru an ugly divorce with his ex-wife, Dawn. Now Dawn is a part of the Republicans for Harry Reid group. Expect Kirk’s ex-wife to be fawning for Obama.

[BillyBoy]

He picked up some name ID when he was the GOP nominee for State Rep. in 2006, and his company Wallace Multimedia Group, LLC is very popular with black church goers. It’s kinda like the situation Oberweis was in back in 2002, at that time people had heard of his namesake company, but didn’t know much about the guy who ran it.

[BillyBoy]

>> Rasmusseen says 66% of IL voters will vote automatically against Burris. So Burris is DOA in the primary. <<

Ah, but general election voters and primary voters are two different things. Burris is radioactive among general election voters, and most of the rank-and-file Dem party bosses won't touch him, but the Bobby Rush crowd will still claim it's a "black" senate seat and vote along racial lines. That's not enough to win the primary, but in a crowded primary, Burris winning the RAT nomination with about 20% is theoretically possible.

[Clintonfatigued]

If he has a mountain of money, he could be feasible. But if spending one’s own money were a key to success, we’d be talking about the reelection of Jim Oberweis right now.

[BillyBoy]

For the past few years, the problem in Illinois is everything they find someone "from the private sector" with a mountain of money who can self-fund a statewide race as a viable candidate, the person turns out to be unlikeable (Oberweis), or self-destructs in a scandal (Jack Ryan)

Hopefully Wallace will prove to be the exception to this trend. He's a very easy-going, approachable type and a down to earth speaker. Think Herman Cain or Mike Huckabee.

[PhilCollins]

I read that Dr. Wallace ran for the state senate against Maggie Crotty, in the 19th District, which includes Oak Forest, Matteson, and Orland Park.

[Impy]

I didn’t even know Kirk was married. Doubtless this wench has been a bad influence on the already too liberal Kirk. GOP pols should never marry to the left. Laura Bush included.

I don’t think the rat primary will be crowded enough for Burris to win. Schakowsky has recently said she’s passing on the race, I think Bill Daley said no a while back. Kennedy still hasn’t announced yet.

2012 and 2014 will have plenty of rat targets in GOP or swing states in contrast to next year. I expect a net gain both years. Of course back in 2005 I thought 2006 provided a wealth of targets (and it did but....)

If all 3 cycle’s go well enough 2015 is the earliest I think a GOP majority will be possible again. Knock on wood. It could be much longer if things don’t work out well.

[PhilCollins]

Last Sat., I attended a meeting of the Republican Organization of Wheeling Township, and Rep. Kirk was the guest speaker. Someone asked whether he’ll run for the U.S. Senate. Kirk said that he hasn’t decided. He said, “The White House chose someone they think is the perfect candidate for the U.S. Senate or governor. That person can’t run for both offices. A few days after that person makes an announcement, I’ll announce the race in which I’ll run.” I think that Kirk was referring to Attorney General Madigan. He knows that she’ll run for the U.S. Senate or governor, and he’ll probably run for the race for which she doesn’t run.

I think that, in 2010, Democrats will gain three seats, in the U.S. Senate, and six seats, in the U.S. House, unless Republicans campaign together, similarly to the Contract with America. They should promise that, if Republicans regain control of both houses of Congress, they’ll cut tax rates to the 1989 rates, repeal all laws that aren’t authorized by the Constitution (because of the 10th Amendment), and build a brick wall, along the Mexican border.

[Impy]

The house is another story from the Senate. I certainly expect a GOP net gain of house seats. It would be a sign of the apocalypse if this does not occur.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I just read Eric Wallace’s article, and I thought “this is the guy we should run for the Senate.”

Then I clicked on your other links about him, and I see that he’s got more in common with Herman Cain than just his business success, steadfast conservative principles and ability to effectively communicate conservative ideas to open-minded readers. A conservative Republican candidate who happens to be black could help us decrease the usual Democrat supermajority in Cook County (especially after the Democrat establishment shoves a white candidate like that mobster Giannoulias down black Democrats’ throats) while giving us the type of high conservative turnout we need to win statewide.

And, of course, a Senator Eric Wallace would immediately have the attention of the national media as they realize that Obama’s home state has elected another black Senator, but one that offers real, conservative solutions to our nation’s problems instead of that inane, liberal drivel that Obama spouts. I have often said that if the GOP can get just 30% of the black vote it would turn the Democrats into a permanent minority party, and having sonmeone like Eric Wallace in the Senate would be a great way to get our message out to black voters—many of whom are politically conservative but don’t know it yet—that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, that share their most cherished values with them.

So, Billy, do you really think that Wallace will run?

[BillyBoy]

Eric Wallace has said for a while now that he will run as a “Stop Kirk” alternative if Kirk gets in the race. The question has been whether he will run if Kirk doesn’t jump in the race. Freeper PhilCollins got an email yesterday saying Wallace has confirmed his hat is in the ring, and he will officially kick-off his U.S. Senate campaign at a June 27th event. He’s laying the ground work right now.

His contact info:

Rev. Eric M. Wallace, Ph.D.
President/CEO
Wallace Multimedia Group, LLC
P. O. Box 2281
Matteson, IL 60443
ewallace@wallacemultimediagroup.com
http://www.wallacemultimediagroup.com
http://www.freedomsjournalmagazine.com
http://www.integritybooks.net
(708) 679-0758

[yongin]

Lisa Madigan has corresponding with the Messiah about running for the Senate. Madigan will run if the Messiah favors her over his basketball buddy Alex G. The combine thought Quinn would be just an intermin Governor. Since he is showing signs of running for re-election, Madigan will forgo challenging him and run for Senate.

[yongin]

I find it disturbing that we could get back down to Watergate numbers in the Senate. In a sense, we are reverting back to the 1970s. Unemployment, possible inflation, high oil prices, and a hostile Iran.

[PhilCollins]

The 1970’s helped Republicans, in 1980. Ronald Reagan won, and Republicans gained 12 seats, in the U.S. Senate, and 15 seats, in the U.S. House.