Let me just say up front, I'm sure Mike Turner is a nice a guy and a good Democrat. That said, he is an insurmountably bad choice for the Democratic nomination in VA-10 for the following reasons:
On Tuesday, Democrats in VA-10 have a choice between Judy Feder and Mike Turner for the Democratic nomination. Most of us, I'm assuming, are aware of who Judy Feder is and the credentials she brings to the race:
G求 She just happens to be one of the nation's most prominent experts on one of the nation's biggest problems. Health care.G求 As the Dean of one of the top public policy schools in the country, she has a broad range of policy experience on all the issues facing our country.
G求 She's a team player. Judy didn't sit it out after November '07. She went to work for Democrats in the '07 election. That's probably why she has the support of Del. Chuck Caputo, Del. Margi Vanderhye, Supervisor John Foust and '07 candidates like Jay Donahue, Janet Oleszek, Jeanne West and many others. In fact she has the support of every U.S. Senator, Congressman, Virginia Delegate, and labor union that has chosen to support a candidate in this race.
G求 She's the best known, best funded, best organized Democrat we could send against an entrenched Republican incumbent.
But if you're like me, some of you may be wondering about Mike Turner.
So, who is Mike Turner?Let me just say up front, I'm sure Mike Turner is a nice a guy and a good Democrat. That said, he is an insurmountably bad choice for the Democratic nomination in VA-10 for the following reasons:
1. Mike Turner is an abysmal fundraiser. He initially claimed that he'd be able to raise $1 million dollars by April 14th, 2008. He wound up about $950,000 short, and for that reason alone cannot ever expect to take on Frank Wolf. Period. Full Stop.2. He was a blue dog, a conservative, then back to a moderate, then a progressive
except when he's west of say, Leesburgwhere he's still a moderate or maybe a blue dog but possibly also a conservative. WTF?3. He was the candidate that could work across party lines, until he stated at the 10th District Democratic convention that he didn't believe in bi-partisanship, until a week later when he did again.
4. He was the candidate who was going to run a positive, substantive campaign until he began engaging in mistruths, half-truths, and innuendos.
5. He was for the Obama health care plan until he needed the endorsement of a pro-Kucinich group and then he endorsed the Kucinich plan. Seriously, Mike, the Kucinich Plan? In a district where the phrase socialized medicine is used as a deadly weapon, you think you're going to take on Frank Wolf with the Kucinich Plan?
6. He defended the use of cluster bombs against human targets at the last Webb brigades meeting. Then issued a press statement 48 hours later claiming a complete conversion.
And I could go on and on...
Mike Turner is a nice guy. But he is not, not, NOT a reasonable choice to represent the Democratic Party in VA-10.
And for those still clinging to the idea that Feder can't win in 2008:
G求 She's already raised well over $1,000,000 - that's over $600,000 more than she had at this same time in 2006.G求 She is far better known in 2008 than she was in 2006. She starts this race against Wolf with more money and more name recognition than last time around.
G求 The current environment for the GOP (nationally and in Virginia) is far worse than it was in 2006.
What do the following Congressional candidates have in common?
Nancy Boyda - lost by 15% her first time out
Paul Hodes - lost by 20% her first time out
Jerry McNerney - lost by 21% his first time out
Joe Donnelly - lost by almost 10% his first time out and then won by better than 7% on his second; a 17% swing.
Two things:
1. They all lost by margins similar to or greater than Judy's their first time out.
2. Oh yeah, now they're all in Congress.
One other thing. There was some other guy in Virginia who lost his first TWO races for Congress before finally winning on the third time. His name: Rep. Frank Wolf.
Case. Closed.
Frank needs to go and Judy needs our support.
The only half truths that are emerging in this campaign are from your latest blog posts.
Mike Turner will have all the resources he needs to close the 16-point gap and defeat Wolf in November, so funding is not the issue. The issue is "Who is the strongest candidate against Frank Wolf?"
Mike Turner received the endorsement of the Progressive Democrats of America and Judy Feder did not.
Mike Turner has consistently invited voters in the 10th CD to visit his website and watch the debates either in person or online (on his website or on YouTube and Google Video). Judy Feder has not had the courage to post the full debate videos on her website. I wonder why?
That is still Mike Turner's position -- to trust the intelligence of the voters who do their homework.
Other bloggers can visit the two websites and make up their own minds -- without Limbaughesque guidance from Feder's misguided blog supporters and paid staff who seem to be reheasing for a swiftboating audition.
Visit:
www.MikeTurnerforCongress.com
www.judyfeder.com
The information is all there. Voters can read the text, view the videos of the debates, compare the candidates, and make up their own minds.
Maybe while you're here you can answer some of the issues raised in this piece instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
1. Mike Turner will have the resources. Really? He hasn't been able to raise any thus far. Why will that change. The national party won't get involved until he's raised a million or so on his own, and that doesn't seem likely.
2. Is he a blue dog? Okay if he is, but shouldn't he just claim it instead of trying to be all things to all people. What kind of blue dog gets endorsed by PDA?
3. Speaking of Republicans why does Mr. Turner continue to denigrate Judy Feder's academic background? I thought the anti-intellectual attitude belonged to the other party. Not to mention that Judy has held senior positions in both the executive and legislative branches, something you seem to forget.
Originally, since I vote in the 8th, I had planned to stay neutral in the primary contests in the 10th and the 11th.
Money does matter in politics. In the summer of 206, for example, I wrote that no one who chose to take matching funds in the primary could hope to have the resources to compete in the Democratic primary, and that it was quite conceivable that one or both parties would for the first time opt out of taking Federal funds for the general. Competitive elections, especially in expensive media markets, take a fair amount of money.
In the case of the 11th, the choice was more difficult, because I know and like Doug Denneny from the Webb Campaign. But Leslie has been willing to put herself on the line for others. And in comparison tlo Connolly, it is no contest. Leslie decided she would run regardless of what Tom Davis did. I sincerely doubt Connolly would even be in the race were Davis running again.
As for the 11th and my support of Judy? Wolf may have a long incumbency, but he is no longer in the majority, has no prospects in being in the majority after this fall, and that weakens his case for reelection. And having run once, Judy knows how to run against Wolf, and does not have to start by introducing herself to the voters of the district. And she has real expertise on one of the most important issues this cycle, health care.
I am not paid staff for anyone. I have never been paid staff, and I have worked in campaigns from local to national elections since I was a teenager in suburban New York. I have been offered paid jobs in local, state-wide and national campaigns, but have chosen to do what I do without seeking compensation. The most I ever did was accept reimbursement for out of pocket expenses for several trips to Pennsylvania for the Hollings for President campaign back in 1983.
You need to learn to support your candidate without attacking the supporters of the other candidate.
It is interesting that you raise the question of trust. Granted, Judy has fundraising sources outside the district. But even within the district she has raised substantially more than has Turner. Perhaps that is a strong indication that the voters trust Judy - to run a more effective campaign, to be the better candidate in the general. And on Tuesday I fully expect that she will deliver a commanding victory in the primary.
Oh, and by the way - my predictions for 2006 were a hell of lot better than those offered by Karl Rove. So please don't insult me with that comparison.
"Independent Thinker" ???? sounds more like he has an agenda of his own.....
One of my adult daughters also informed me the other day that she found the "command" given in Mike's last mail piece offensive.... that she should "read the mail piece in it's entirity".... well I also went to the Air Force Academy that Mike did and recognize the "Command Voice" of a "full bird". It didn't offend me as it did her.......
After reading your post which obviously shows you didn't take the time to research who you were about to "Dis" (which you could have by just using the tools that this blog makes available).... You too, show the "Command Voice" only with a sloppy lack of understanding.... If you have an opinion express it, just respect those of us who have been working for years for ALL our Dem candidates with positive effort. The last time I saw something with your "tone" on this blog, it turned out to be a paid blogger or teen age staffer.... hmmm, maybe tracing the IP address of your post would be worth the effort and entertainment value.... but then I wouldn't want to potentionally blemish Mike for your un-informed shot in the dark.... Mike has worked hard as a "first timer" and has a good future as a Democrat.
As someone who was at the debate in Sterling (while very impressed that my then-10-week-old baby would stay quiet through the whole thing), the video on Mike Turner's website is the video that came from one of the several video cameras there recording the event.
And for my part, Mike Turner was by far the superior candidate in the debate. He gave thought out answers to every question. Many of the questions asked different versions of typical questions - that is, take a prominent issue and then ask a question that takes on a different angle. Mike listened to the questions and responded to the question that was actually asked. Feder used it as an opportunity to pivot to her rehearsed talking points.
As an example, there was a question that started by saying that the US is not graduating enough people in the field of engineering/science to support our growing need. Then the actual question was, should the US increase immigration of foreigners with such expertise. Feder didn't even try to address the question and just went on about how we need to improve education. Turner actually gave a real answer regarding the actual question. It just showed me a real difference in terms of their grasp on the issues and their ability to process information.
The difference to me is one of problem solving skills. With every answer, Turner really described his problem solving prowess by first identifying the underlying problem (not just the symptom). For example, and I might get the details wrong, in a question about food shortages worldwide, Turner pointed out that increasing food production would not be an effective approach because a lack of food supply is not the problem - the problem is that the existing food isn't reaching the people who need it. This approach of really understanding the real problem and addressing that was a significant discriminator during the debate.
Also, honestly, it didn't help that Feder talked very slowly, as if explaining things to an 8-year old. It seemed like she either didn't have a deep understanding of things or that she just didn't respect my intelligence. Either way, it was thoroughly uninspiring, and I think that's part of why the voters didn't go for her last time around in 2006.
One other problem: Feder ran a terrible campaign in 2006, despite having tons of money, and I don't have any reason to believe she'll run a better on this time. For example, we received mailers from Feder every couple days. We are members of the LCDC and had a Feder yard sign up. Please don't waste money sending us mailers. We got annoyed every time we received one. And to me, a poorly run campaign is a major reason why in a year when a democratic wave crashed in congressional districts nationwide, Feder got crushed.
You say you do not like "attacks" but that was exactly what you were doing in your post (above), starting this thread by issuing 6 unsubstantiated and uninformed attacks against Congressional candidate Mike Turner.
Let's examine one of your attacks in detail to assess your credibility on the blogs.
You derisively mentioned the "Kucinich Plan" when referring more appropriately to Single Payer Healthcare as described in House Bill 676 - a plan which Mike Turner has strongly endorsed and Judy Feder has rejected as being "too radical".
This plan is backed by hundreds of thousands of physicians including: Bernard Lown, MD, Nobel Laureate, Harvard; Marcia Angell, MD, Past Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine; Quentin Young, MD, Past President of the American Public Health Association; and Gerald Thompson, Past President of the American College of Physicians. The list goes on and on. Mike Turner strongly supports the plan but Judy Feder does not and says it is "too radical" (NV Daily, June 7, 2008).
Here is what these distinguished physicians have said in support of Single Payer Health Care: "The incremental changes suggested by most Democrats cannot solve our problems; further pursuit of market-based strategies, as advocated by Republicans, will exacerbate them. What needs to be changed is the system itself." But Judy Feder says it is "too radical".
Congressman Jim Moran also endorses the plan knowing that it is not socialized medicine and that patients retain their ability to select their own private physician and hospital; but Judy Feder says it is "too radical".
Mike Turner also endorses the plan. When Mike Turner was introduced to the plan, he read it from cover to cover then consulted with health care experts. The plan made sense to him and he believes the time to put it in place is now so our country can fix a health care system ranked 37th in the world. But Judy Feder says it is "too radical".
Maybe Mike Turner, Jim Moran, Dr. William Reid, Dennis Kucinich, and hundreds of thousands of physicians know something that you and Judy Feder do not? Maybe you can learn something from them?
I suggest your attacks have zero credibility -- and that the readers of this blog can do their own homework and make up their own minds on Tuesday.
Get a clue.
I will have no reservations supporting Mike should he win the primary, but I feel that Judy can muster more resources and has a stronger position on health care and on education. I feel Mike has very strong positions on disaster relief and foreign policy. I am concerned he may not have much empathy for enlisted veterans (which is somewhat an irony given his own status as a veteran). Most of all I am concerned that most of his responses to the questions were not quite ready for the election... he is getting close, but needs a little more time in politics and civic/public policy.
I really hope Judy wins and that Mike can continue to work in elections and public policy over time. He needs to make a name for himself supporting other progressive and/or liberal candidates in the area.
Citing the Progressive Democrats of America is not really effective, because so few people have heard of them, especially here in Virginia. The PDV website looks like it was created yesterday, and does not look very fleshed out, yet. As a progressive myself, I am hoping for better from a progressive organization. I was curious because I am looking for progressive organizations to get involved with... gotta say I am unimpressed so far.
Attacking well known progressive bloggers for their opinions is even less effective. That probably cost Mike 30 votes tomorrow (gross assumption on my part, but I am guessing 90-100 RK readers read your comment and were turned off enough to vote for Judy instead of Mike; but only 1/3 of them live in the 10th). Relax, sing Mike Turner's praises; let others choose for themselves.
For me - I am very impressed with Mike's Red Cross work. He has the kernel of a really good campaign. It needs some work though; as all candidates do. I am also impressed with how he handles tough questions. I hope he stays involved post-primary and continues to make a name for himself. I hope Judy brings him in to help her campaign and uses Mike for his research when she is in congress.
Not sure if you can see this if you are not logged into Facebook,
but I hope so:
http://www.facebook.com/note.p...
I am still voting for Judy tomorrow, but will be happy to support the winner against Wolf or McKinley in November.
I urge everyone to vote for Judy tomorrow, because she's the best choice to represent us in Congress. Her experience, name recognition and policy knowhow is more than enough reason to nominate her to take on Frank Wolf.
It is completely unnecessary to say things like this about her opponent for the nomination:
4. He was the candidate who was going to run a positive, substantive campaign until he began engaging in mistruths, half-truths, and innuendos.Accusing someone of such things, without any evidence of such things, is practicing the politics of innuendo and half-truths ourselves. In a site which did all it could to support the nomination of Barack Obama, a site that should be rededicated to a different kind of politics, ad hominem accusations of ad hominem accusations is hypocritical at best, petty at worst.
I expect that you have evidence for your other points, as they contain substantive positions based on apparent facts, but (4) is simply hacking at a candidate for no reason other than to defame.
We must be better than that.
Tomorrow, I will vote FOR Judy Feder, and I will fight FOR Judy Feder, but I will not vote against my friend and fellow Democrat Mike Turner, and neither should anyone else.
I support change by urging our nation to take a moral leadership position on human rights worldwide. My opponent has been silent.
I have talked to numerous people who were surprised that one Democrat would accuse another of being "silent on human rights." What does this mean, that Judy opposes human rights? Ridiculous.
The presidential primary had quite the back and forth but never did one candidate in that race accuse another of not supporting human rights. This will almost certainly lead to a backlash.
Mike has also claimed that he's the only candidate that supports "change" on health care. Again a ridiculous statement, Judy has been fighting for that change for decades.
I understand your frustration with the tone but I think it's the result of Judy supporters here and elsewhere becoming tired of Mike's increasingly negative campaign and feeling compelled to speak out.
As for health care, at the last debate in Sterling, Feder said that he approach on health care would be to sponsor the bill that the new democratic president (Hillary was still in the race at this point). Um, Judy, aren't you the supposed expert on health care? Why don't you use your exceptional expertise and show us what the right answer is on health care? Her failure to do so is exactly what I mean when I say that she hasn't shown leadership.
"Substantive leadership" is a gimmick. By my count at least his third such slogan of this campaign. What happened to change. performance. leadership. or change. win. action?
And as someone who has met Mike on multiple occasions at different LCDC events, I can say, subjectively, that Mike is a person that simply exudes leadership. It's not just a slogan. Every time I have seen him in action I have been thoroughly impressed. He's an excellent leader with strong motivational speaking skills.
When he mentioned, at one of these events, that he was running for congress, I was very excited because I could think of no one who would better represent me and my vision of what government is supposed to be. I'll concede that I wish he had raised more money, but a lack of money, to me, is not a viable reason to not vote for someone who is, agin - to me, otherwise a superior candidate.
That exactly mirrors my position - I am voting FOR Mike Turner, not against my friend Judy Feder. The attacks and labels on both sides do a disservice to both candidates. They are both far better than that.
I cross posted the note Scott mentioned here:
http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...
C'mon folks, as Evan pointed out, we have a new national leader of the Democrats who is urging us toward a new kind of leadership. We don't have to tear down our opponents to build up our candidates. We can be better than that, and our party will be much stronger as a result.