Stupid Stuff Said About Brian, Creigh, Terry

By: Lowell
Published On: 10/4/2008 7:53:53 AM

It's still early, but I've got to say that the debate so far on the 2009 Democratic gubernatorial primary has generally not been particularly high minded.  Here are just a few of the "more stupider" arguments I've heard used against three good men and certainly all good Democrats: Brian Moran, Creigh Deeds, and Terry McAuliffe.

Brian: He has a slight Massachusetts accent (yeah, he grew up in New England, like Mark Warner did, big freakin' deal). He lives in Alexandria (also, like Mark Warner does...horrors!).  For both of those reasons, he simply CAN'T win, certainly won't "play" south of northern Virginia (yeah, let's never run anyone from northern Virginia ever again; only people from outside NOVA need run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination - brilliant!). Also, Brian Moran's supposedly a liberalliberalliberalliberalliberal. Aside from the obvious fact that there's nothing wrong with being a liberal (right wingers have worked pretty effectively at demonizing that word, and that's really sad), Brian happens to be a former prosecutor who voted to override a veto of the "triggerman rule" on expanding the death penalty. Hmmmm...except that he received an 89% rating from the Virginia National Federation of Independent Business.  Hmmm...except he received a 69% positive rating from the vehemently pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League. So much for that theory!

Creigh: He lost before, therefore he'll lose again. Sort of like when Mark Warner lost the first time he ran (or as he says "got the silver medal"), then ran in 2001 and won, again in 2008 and won (whoops, gotta wait a few more weeks for that result to be official - ha). I've also heard that Creigh isn't a good public speaker (didn't prevent Dubya from getting elected!) and that he "lacks gravitas" (you mean, like "Taliban Bob" or Jim Gilmore have "gravitas?" ha).  Plus, what's "gravitas" exactly; I like Creigh, find him to be very intelligent and a strong leader. Sorry, but Thomas Jefferson's not available this time around. :)

Terry: He's not from Virginia (no, he's only lived here for nearly 20 years - about the same as Mark Warner when he ran against John Warner in 1996).  He's really good at raising money, and somehow that's a BAD thing. (Yeah, raising orders of magnitude more money than "Taliban Bob," and being able to use that money to run a superb coordinated campaign next year and ensure that NO DEMOCRAT LOSES for lack of money, that's a horrible thing.  Heh.)  He's a Clintonite (yeah, let's drum all of them from the party and see how that goes - brilliant strategy, oh yeah!). He didn't do much as DNC chairman (no, only rebuilt it from near total bankruptcy and ineffectiveness into a top-notch organization where Howard Dean could take over and launch his 50-state strategy...). He never had any involvement in Virginia politics (besides traveling all over the state - including currently for Barack Obama - for the Democratic Party and giving Tim Kaine a check for $2.5 million in late 2004, no he hasn't done much). He can't win (no, spending several times more money than "Taliban Bob" won't help at all - much better to be outspent 2:1 or 3:1 like some of our previous candidates - ha).  He doesn't have any real interest in being governor (no, he has NOTHING else to do with his life - snark).  He doesn't know why he's running for governor (no, just to be Virginia's top economic booster, to grow the economy, to invest in the Commonwealth's infrastructure, and to get important things done). He was involved with some sort of bad stuff with a company called Global Crossing (yeah, that's why Howard Kurtz of CNN reported that McAuliffe sold his shares years before there was "any hint of trouble with the company," thus clearing him of any possible wrongdoing).

The bottom line is that these are three excellent Democrats. They all would be infinitely better than "Taliban Bob" McDonnell, who is from the extremist wing of the Republican Party.  That's a no-brainer. The real questions for voters in 2009 will be pretty simple: 1) who has the best chance of beating Bob; 2) who's the strongest leader; 3) who can relate to "people like you" (and who can you best relate to after seeing them and meeting them); 4) who has the best ideas for the future of Virginia; and 5) did I mention beating "Taliban Bob?" :)  That's what I want to hear about, not all the stupid stuff listed above.

P.S. One more - I'm convinced that all three of these guys can win votes in all parts of Virginia. Many of the comments I've heard on this subject have been absolutist ("Candidate X can't win south of...fill in the blank") and I think they're dead wrong.  Same thing as saying that "Taliban Bob" won't win votes in NOVA - of course he will.


Comments



One other knock on Terry (humanfont - 10/4/2008 9:56:19 AM)
He was completely against the 50 state strategy.  This is of course the very strategy that helped make democrats viable in Virginia again (that and Mark Warner's excellent leadership).  If he'd been running the DNC do you really think we'd have recruited and run Webb successfully?  


Do you have a link? (Lowell - 10/4/2008 11:20:16 AM)
I had never heard that Terry was against the 50-state strategy, but remember that this was conventional wisdom among just about everyone in the 1990s and beyond.  To this day, a LOT of people still don't really support it, believing instead that Democrats should focus their resources on "winnable" states. Personally, I'm a fan of the 50-state strategy, but I'm also realistic in the sense that you can't throw your money everywhere.  Hence, the Obama campaign pulled out of North Dakota recently, while McCain's campaign pulled out of Michigan.  Sometimes, you've got to make hard choices, but I definitely like Dean's 50-state strategy.


Good Post Lowell (Scott Surovell - 10/4/2008 11:09:04 AM)
It's time someone pointed this stuff out.  I've been hearing all kinds of self-serving nonsense about why different candidates have problems.  

Brian, Creigh and Terry all have various strengths and weaknesses.  From my point of view, I'm happy that so many well-qualified candidates are thinking about running.  The fact that so many people want to make the sacrifice to take this shot says that we have a good shot at winning.



Of course, they all have strengths and (Lowell - 10/4/2008 11:23:30 AM)
weaknesses.  That's why I generally favor primaries, because voters can decide who they prefer based on the candidates' campaigns, their messages, their ideologies, their leadership styles, their perceived "electability" (of course, a lot of that will become apparent when they hit the stump and we can all see the reaction), etc.  Let's hear what all our candidates, for governor, LG, AG, etc. have to say next year, then let's make a smart decision.  But let's not prejudge people, let's not stereotype, let's not use Republican talking points, let's not spout cliches (like "so and so can't win north of here" or "that guy can't win south or west of there") and let's not be hasty when we've got PLENTY of time!


Can we all promise to focus on 2008 for just the next month? (Kindler - 10/4/2008 10:29:12 PM)
I have opinions on all 3 of them, but I'm going to hold them for now.  We have the most important election of my lifetime coming up in one month, and this time, Virginia is arguably the most important battleground state of them all.  

No time for distractions, folks -- we will have an entire year to think about 2009.  Now is the time to focus all your disposable cash, free time and shoe leather to electing Obama, Warner and our roster of Congressional candidates.  2009 can wait!