Gov. Bolling a Good Thing?

What I really like about this is the disarray that it would throw Virginia Republicans into. They've managed to plan out the 2009 election pretty neatly, with AG Bob McDonnell running for governor and Bill Bolling running for reelection as LG. But with Bolling already in the governor's mansion, that leaves McDonnell running for reelection as AG, at best, and challenging Bolling for the nomination, at worst. Bolling would be a much weaker candidate for governor than McDonnell-he's milquetoast next to McDonnell-which has got to be a big part of why Bolling stepped aside for McDonnell to run. Short of a challenge by McDonnell, Virginia Republicans would be stuck with Bolling as their '09 candidate.

Better still, Virginia Republicans would regard Bolling's ascension as a victory. Rather than understanding that they simply got lucky-that Kaine handed the governor's office to Republicans-their dwindling core of true believers would genuinely believe that Bolling's governorship means that the electorate is clamoring for their flat-earth vision of government. Which is, of course, precisely the opposite of the truth.

Remember this basic truth: when handed an opportunity, Virginia Republicans never fail to squander it utterly. The bigger the opportunity, the more devastating the damage to the party. Governor Bolling? Epic fail. I would fully expect the far-right wing of the party to be furious with Bolling in a matter of months.

It's an interesting argument, and I tend to agree with Waldo on much of it, but I keep going back and forth on the overall advantages/disadvantages of Gov. Bill Bolling.  In fact, I started making exactly this line of argument to fellow Democrats a few months ago, that Gov. Bolling would totally screw up the Republicans' best-laid plans for 2009, that it would be hilarious to see "Taliban Bob" and Bolling go at each other, and that I wasn't particularly worried about anything Bolling could do to Virginia as a lame (and I mean LAME!) duck in 2009.  I was surprised that almost nobody agreed with my "brilliant" argument. In fact, most people seemed to think that I was being "too clever by half," as the saying goes, and that Gov. Bolling would be a really bad thing.  

Also, several people told me that they did NOT think the Republicans would tear each other apart, but that McDonnell would simply run for reelection as AG and Bolling for governor.

Now that I read Waldo's well-articulated statement of the "go Gov. Bolling!" argument, I'm kind of leaning back to where I began, that Gov. Bolling might actually end up being a good thing on balance for Virginia Democrats.  What do you think?

P.S. By the way, I've got to strongly disagree with my friend Waldo that "urban Democrats" are getting "too big for our britches" and "acting like we've got 60% of the electorate on board, when it's more like 45%, at best."  Actually, just about everyone I talk to in "urban" and suburban areas is pretty apprehensive about our prospects for 2009 and not at ALL thrilled about the prospect of Bill Bolling as governor. I also have talked to Virginia Democratic electeds who are not at all pleased at the prospect of a bruising primary battle between Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, and would like to avoid that at all costs.

Finally, it's pretty hard to get "too big for your britches" when you don't control the House of Delegates and when you only (nominally) "control" the state Senate by 1 seat. Now, if we picked up another 5 or 6 Senate seats and 10 or so House seats, plus the governor's mansion in 2009, THEN we might start getting a bit overconfident.  But for now, we're not even close to that point.

Comments