Could a Danville R&B endorsement be in the offing for Perriello?

This has been one of Tom Perriello's key arguments -- before voters could take a look at him, there needed to be a rationale to turn away from Goode.

I have provided some specific excerpts from the DRB editorial after the jump, but the gist of the article is that while Goode may bring home some bacon because he sits on Appropriations, would the District be better off with a more highly-respected member, and a member of the majority party, like Tom Perriello representing us.

I think it is highly significant that DRB is basically saying that Tom's argument about Goode being an ineffective representative for the 5CD is valid.

(More on the flip)
Once you agree with that part of the argument, then the next step is to focus on Tom, and ask whether he could be more effective. He has proven he can by:

1. The fact that he grew up here and understands the District;

2. The time he has spent campaigning in Southside and listening to the needs of citizens down there;

3. A career of successfully fighting on behalf of people who need help, as I once heard Tom eloquently put it, "People who need a hand up, not a hand out."

4. The fact that he is a Democrat, the party that will almost certainly be in charge of the Congress, and hopefully the Presidency as well.

Look, Virgil is a nice guy -- lets concede that. And he is smart. But for good or ill, and lets say even for the best of motives, he has chosen to align himself with the most extreme elements of the GOP. Goode is not only generally ineffective -- he has even managed to alienate himself from being able to engage in any contructive way with his own party.

I don't know whether or if the DRB will make an endorsement in the race. For the sake of the District, I hope it does, and I hope it is for Tom Perriello.

The logic of this editorial seems to say to me that there is a pretty good chance that this is the way the paper's board is leaning.

Here is link to the full article, which I urge you all to read.

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/...

Here are a few excerpts to give the flavor:

Washington is about power, and the majority party controls much of that power. While Goode kept his seat on the House Appropriations Committee, he slid in the ranking of effectiveness - like a lot of Republicans - because Democrats now control the House.

In a tight race this year against Democrat Tom Perriello, those Power Rankings have been used as part of a larger argument that Goode is only doing part of the job for the 5th District.

*     *      *

So by any measure - even among his fellow Republicans - Goode ranked low in this survey, a fact not lost on Perriello.

*       *      *

Goode's effectiveness ranking is as high as it is because he is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, a position he has used to fund local projects throughout the 5th District. Locally, those projects include the Robertson Bridge replacement, the Institute for Advanced Learning & Research and individual economic development projects.

Goode has argued - correctly - that if Perriello is elected, the 5th District will lose that seat on House Appropriations.

*       *         *

Perriello believes the 5th District could do even better by having a representative who gets legislation written that will help steer federal projects - instead of just individual project earmarks.

"We've seen a constant showing of the least production," Perriello told Media General News Service. "Congressman Goode in 12 years has not championed one serious piece of legislation."

*        *      *

Goode's seat on House Appropriations has been a gravy train of federal dollars that has helped all kinds of local projects. As long as these projects are funded by Congress, Goode has said he will continue to fight for the 5th District's share.

But it's also true that some members of Congress who aren't members of the Appropriations Committee are still able to get money for their districts.

*         *           *

It's up to the voters to decide if that's enough.

h/t Democratic Central

Comments