Sen. Deeds
With the Democratic nominee for president settled, and Mark Warner looking fairly unstoppable in his bid for the Senate, the most interesting aspect of the convention for me was the battle between Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran for next year's democratic nomination for Governor, and I went specifically, among other reasons, to get a better handle on these candidates.
These comments are obviously belated notes from the Virginia Democratic Convention, but I hope no less meaningful -- to the extent that they are at all meaningful, on account of their tardiness.
Photos follow.
I have met Sen. Deeds several times and think highly of him. I have never met Del. Moran, but am aware that he is held in high esteem by many bloggers whose work I respect, such as Lowell and Vivian Paige.
Over the past week, supporters of Del. Moran have taken to RK and other blogs to tout their man's performance at the convention. A video of his speech has been posted, and in response comments in response have popped up like crocuses in Springtime - the commentators invisible one day, there the next, and then just as suddenly gone -- to declare that Sen. Deeds ought to run for AG and leave the Governor's slot free for Del. Moran.
Based on what I saw last Saturday at the convention, however, Sen. Deeds is far and away the better candidate for the Democratic Party and for the State of Virginia at this point in time, even if he currently lags in organization.
Let me say that this is in no way a negative assessment of Del. Moran. Both candidates delivered fine speeches to the convention in terms of style. As for content, neither speech could be fairly judged on this point, as both Deeds and Moran used the occasion to exhort the party to support this year's ticket, not to make the case for their own candidacies.
Within the hall, however, Moran clearly had more robust support, but this was also clearly the result of a more robust organizational effort by his campaign. His people distributed signs and were greater in number in Deeds. His very vocal supporters were gathered together up front to generate the most excitement.
As political theater, it was effective, but that is not a basis upon which to judge the relative merits of each campaign at this point.
My sense was that Sen. Deeds was less concerned with these kinds of atmospherics than Del. Moran's campaign. His staff and campaign paraphernalia were decidedly low key. Indeed, when Sen. Deeds made his early announcement that he would run for Governor, he said he was doing so only to remove any doubt about his intentions and that he would not allow his candidacy to interfere with this year's election.
Sen. Deeds has been true to his word. He made no effort to turn the convention into a rally for himself.
Indeed, even Sen. Deed's hospitality suite was held not at the convention center itself, but in the hotel next door. And given that he is one of two frontrunners for the Commonwealth's top elective office, it was quite modest compared to the lavish affair that Jon Bowerbank threw at the Convention Center.
More revealing to me than the set piece speeches on the convention floor, however, were the more informal talks both Del. Moran and Sen. Deeds gave afterwards at the DLOV reception. Here, Sen. Deeds seemed to me much more genuine and at ease. He seemed to really connect with his audience, which included Judy Feder.
This is not meant in any way to criticize Del. Moran, whose comments were certainly adequate, if unexceptional.
I took the opportunity to introduce myself to Del. Moran and chatted for a few moments - I won't be reporting the content except to say it was not noteworthy. I came away feeling neither impressed nor turned off by him.
In comparison, even short conversations with Sen. Deeds have always left me impressed.
When I read the debates between posters here regarding the relative strengths and weaknesses of Del. Moran and Sen. Deeds as candidates, Del. Moran's supporters seem to argue that he has an inherent advantage in Northern Virgnia. As for the rest of Virginia, well, Del. Moran's supporters seem to argue that Steve Jarding will be able to advise Moran on that and have the same success he had with Mark Warner.
That remains to be seen. I would only note that even Jarding himself makes clear that Warner's success in Virginia and his ability to connect with rural voters in the state, which Jarding says are essential to winning statewide office, was ultimately dependent on Warner's political skills and genuine feelings, not the strategy of Jarding or any other consultant.
There is no doubt about Sen. Deeds, who came within 300 votes of winning statewide office in 2005 despite being outspent nearly 2-1 by his opponent.
Moran has proven himself an able legislator and party insider in Richmond. While he and his organization made a credible showing at the convention, Del. Moran has yet to show that he is a viable statewide candidate.
(Note: Many of the following pictures are in B+W because I took them for myself and I like B+W better than color. That said, there are a few color shots. Whether B+W or color, you would think having snapped in excess of 400 photographs I would have more than a handful worthy of posting, but the sad commentary to my skills as a photographer is that I don't).
Sen. Deeds
Sen. Deeds, a different angle.
Last time, in color.
While I didn't write about him, above, Mark Warner was a rock star at the convention. After his speech, he waded in the crowd to the beat of the Rolling Stones' "Start Me Up." He was a real pro as he swung from handshake to autograph to photo to autograph and so on. Here are a couple of photos I took from the scrum:
Last, but not least, it was Warner, not Bowerbank, that clearly won the sign wars at the convention. not only were there a million smaller lawn signs, these giant Warner signs seemed to pop up everywhere. Volunteers carried them around to form a backdrop for Warner when he was interviewed off the convention floor. Here's a volunteer packing up the roadshow:
Can you give any thoughts on specific issues discussed or where Creigh might fall on some policy issues?
But your question is a good one.
Sen. Deeds and Del. Moran seem pretty close on most issues. So far, at least as Democrats are concerned, the issues seem to have focused more on culture, geography and electability.
But to answer your question, I had an interesting conversation with a few people I knew slightly at the convention, both very progressive, and both were firmly in Moran's camp. They specifically cited Sen. Deeds' earlier positions on gay marriage.
I completely understand where they are coming from, but I think as democrats we need to be careful with how we frame this issue. The question is not how we define marriage -- that is a wedge the conservatives seek to drive us apart. The issue is civil rights and the right to live our lives in the full "pursuit of happiness," and there I am confident that Sen. Deeds, Del. Moran, me and the people with whom I spoke are all on the same page.
So, I think the gay marriage issue is a red herring.
A second issue where I personally disagree with Sen. Deeds is on the death penalty. I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, but I can understand and respect the perspective of those who don't as long as they approach the issue in a caring and thoughtful manner, like Sen. Deeds.
When Sen. Deeds and Attorney General McDonnell's votes on LGBT issues are nearly the same, I have a huge problem. What is to assure me, or my community, that as governor of Virginia, Deeds will only be slightly better than McDonnell?
His own bumper sticker says: Deeds not words. Well, time and again, Sen. Deeds has proven that when it comes to issues of equality his deeds and votes certainly don't match up to his words.
Also, let me state that I am not all that well-versed in the details here.
Creigh did speak out and vote against HB 751 as unnecessary and mean-spirited.
The fact is that the bills that have come up in the General Assembly on this issue, and that have been proposed by conservatives over the last several years, are hateful and cynical pieces of legislation designed to stoke people's irrational fears of the gay community and serve as wedge issues. As such, I just don't think they are a good guide for evaluating where a candidate stands on the core issue, which is equality for all regardless of one's sexual orientation.
That said, I can see your perspective on the issue, and Sen. Deeds' votes are Sen. Deeds'.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bi...
There is the link to the vote on the bill. He then voted for the Marshall/Newman Amendment. Which he later opposed on the basis of domestic violence a few weeks out of the election. His district then went on to vote against it.
That same year, we argued over H.B. 751, which essentially ensures that a civil union recognized in another state, cannot be recognized in Virginia, but also contains language which perhaps can be construed much more broadly than that. Initially, I voted for that bill. Upon reflection, I voted against the bill after the Governor's amendments to it were rejected. The state constitutional amendment, in my view, narrowly read, simply places in the Constitution that which is already the law of Virginia, namely that marriage is between one man and one woman. The last two sentences of the bill, also read narrowly, in my view, essentially place in the Constitution the language of 751 from the 2004 session. In both 2005 and 2006, I voted to strip those sentences out of the amendment, because of my concern about the application of the provision of that bill.
So I agree with you, Sean, on the substance of the issue.
Sen. Deeds can obviously be better on this issue. That said, as I noted someplace already, based on what I know of him and the several conversations I have had with him (although I never discussed this issue with Sen. Deeds), my very strong belief is that Sen. Deeds (and the vast majority of Virginians) believes in equality for all people and would always act in that way.
But there is no denying that some of his votes and statements on this particular issue have not reflected a belief in that principle in ways that you rightfully demand or, frankly, are entirely consistent.
It's definitely fair game to hold Deeds' feet to the fire and inquire why he was not a leader on this issue. But, to me, the question is -- how will he ensure that gay Virginians are respected and treated equally in all other spheres of their civil rights in spite of this awful amendment? How do he and Moran compare going forward?
As for your comment:
it's one thing to see the marriage amendment as a strategic obstacle and something that needs to be carefully framed, but it's another when you're the direct target of this discriminatory law.
I agree completely.
He's smart, funny, informed, personal and very real, with an impressive, almost stunning amount of energy.
Both Creigh and Brian are fantastic candidates we need to make sure that this primary helps further the careers of both of these fantastic Democrats.
Great Report and thanks so much for the fantastic thoughts and photos.
moran's from NoVA -- you've got to blow the doors off NoVA to win in this state. and Creigh couldn't do that in 05.
I thought your statement was meant seriously, and presented an argument proving it was wrong, but you never responded. You ought to be more willing to defend your ideas or acknowledge where they're wrong, IMHO.
I have nothing to do with whether my posts or anyone else's end up on the front page of RK, but the editors seem to want more than just rah-rah cheerleading on behalf of a candidate -- or at least they have in the past. Sean's comment above is a good example.
It ought not be about equal time, but interesting information.
I'm also a Hampton Roads resident, and I agree with Sean that there's a lot of support for Moran down this way. Part of that's a matter of there being more closely contested House races than State Senate races last year in this region--Virginia Beach saw a lot of support for Delegates Bouchard and Mathieson from the House Dem Caucus. Most of the state senate seats in southside, by contrast, went uncontested.
It used to be that Virginia Democrats didn't have enough quality candidates. Now our problem is we don't have enough statewide offices to go around. Nice change of pace, if you ask me, but I hope we can reach some sort of resolution without having to go to a primary.
But I mainly wrote this diary because in the wake of the convention I saw several diaries and comments that seemed to argue that Creigh should drop out and go for AG because Del. Moran was generating all the buzz.
Even if this is true, it would be a crummy basis on which for Democrats to choose a gubernatorial candidate.
And there does seem to be an astroturfing effort for Del. Moran going on here at RK, although unlike James Martin I have no idea whether it is coming from inside the Moran campaign or not (and frankly, could care less -- astroturfing is annoying whatever its source).
"Even if this is true, it would be a crummy basis on which for Democrats to choose a gubernatorial candidate."*
Agree completely.
On issues like transportation, I belive that Deeds "gets it," and, because of his old-time Virginia credentials is the only candidate who, if elected, can come up with a satisfactory program on transportation (including dedicated continuous funding for Metro)--- and then sell it to the rest of the state, something Kaine has not been able to do, and I doubt that Yankee-NoVa Moran can do, either (sorry, Brian).
Also, think about our 2009 Democratic ticket if Deeds heads it (Bath County), Browerback as Lt. Gov (SW Virginia) and Shannon as Atty Gen (NoVa). Balance, but weighted toward other-than-NoVa, yet firmly Democratic-progressive. That has a much better prospect for total electoral success than a ticket weighted toward NoVa. IMHO.
Warner - NoVa
Kaine - Eastern (Richmond)
Deeds Central and Western (C'ville and Bath)
It is that kind of distribution over a period of three administrations that can build an enduring and truly statewide Democratic majority in Virginia.
That's the heart of RK, it's everything that we're about. Thanks for stating it so clearly.