Speaking of Traitors

Rick Howell should change the name of his blog to "Rick Howell Sneaks." What does he hope to gain by making comments in the Roanoke Times that he should be making to the Sixth District Democratic Committee, the body charged with finding a candidate for Congress from the district?

Ever since he was dismissed from Sam Rasoul's campaign for the House of Representatives (after which he became Treasurer for the short-lived candidacy of Drew Richardson), Howell has had it in for Sam. Other than a bad case of sour grapes, it's hard to understand why.  
The only things Rick has complained about-Sam's youth and relative inexperience, and his lack of a track record in politics-are facts he knew when he joined the campaign in the first place. Maybe he discovered after joining Sam's team that Sam is Muslim, but surely Howell isn't so despicable as to rebel over religion. Maybe he discovered that many of Sam's relatives, from whom the bulk of the early campaign financing was received, have Arabic-sounding names. But, again, surely Howell isn't a racist. But what other explanation is there?

(Howell's one other criticism of Sam is that he allegedly voted once in a Republican primary and did not vote in the Democratic Webb-Harris Senate primary. But this is grasping at straws. In Virginia's open primary system, lots of people of both parties cross over to vote in the other party's primary, and they do it for a variety of reasons. And lots of people sat the Webb-Harris primary out, also for a variety of reasons. These bits of data-one wonders how Howell came by them and why he thinks their disclosure is appropriate-are meaningless.)

Let's look at some facts about the Sixth District. With fund-raising constrained by his refusal to accept donations from PACs and even the Party, Sam earned 37% of the vote. Barack Obama, highly motivated to win Virginia, with slick commercials and huge exposure locally, took 42%. That's a difference of only 5%, yet we all know what kind of organized effort the Obama campaign made here, with staff on the ground everywhere and seemingly unlimited resources. (Howell tries to make a comparison to Mark Warner's numbers, but given Jim Gilmore's universal unpopularity, that's obviously the wrong comparator. Even so, it's important to note that Warner underperformed in the 6th, compared to his margins in all other districts.)

Howell also makes some comparisons between the 6th and the 5th Districts. There are some similarities, it's true. But Virgil Goode in the 5th has made himself a target through recent buffoonery, which considerably aided Tom Perriello's fundraising and attracted the attention of the DCCC. Tom was, indeed, a strong candidate, but other good candidates have not succeeded in that district. The difference this time was money, at least in large measure, and national party attention. And the fact that Goode in many ways self-destructed. Goodlatte, on the other hand, stays aloof from his constituents, speaks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to pork-barrel politics, plays things mostly safe by voting the party line, and so is exceptionally tough to beat.

In his letter to the Roanoke Times, Howell proposes a "permanent subcommittee" of the Sixth District Democratic Committee in order to "screen potential candidates for this congressional seat." This might have been a useful suggestion to make to the Sixth District chair directly-I'm sure she would be happy to hear other constructive suggestions from Howell-except that Howell forgets that this function is in fact the sole purpose of the Sixth District Democratic Committee, making a "permanent subcommittee" redundant. Maybe Howell neglected his duties when he was a member of the Committee, but the rest of us are constantly working toward the goal of finding suitable candidates.

It was in fulfillment of that purpose that the Committee interviewed at least four potential candidates in 2007 to run in 2008, two of whom eventually sought the party's nomination. The Committee has already begun talking to potential candidates for 2010. If Howell knows of viable candidates, I would encourage him to suggest that they contact the Chair of the Committee.

In the meantime, let me say that Rick Howell is simply wrong about Sam Rasoul. Even Adam Sharp, Howell's former colleague on the Richardson campaign, has admitted that Rasoul's efforts on the campaign trail were impressive. I agree with Adam that Sam worked as hard as any candidate I've ever seen. Members of the Sixth District Democratic Committee are extremely proud of Sam Rasoul and the campaign he ran.

Could we in the Sixth District have had a stronger candidate? Of course! No candidate is perfect (except maybe Mark Warner). I doubt we will ever find anyone who will work as hard as Sam Rasoul did-do you dispute this, Rick?-but I could envision someone with the right combination of experience, education, and background who might broaden the base Sam has built. Sam did well in the district's independent cities-do you dispute this, Rick? Were they duped?-but not so well in rural areas. I'm not sure who would appeal to the rural voters in this district who wouldn't also alienate the urban voters, but that would be ideal. Keep the cities and attract the countryside.

So, by all means, I hope the Committee finds strong candidates. I hope they are all willing to work as hard as Sam Rasoul did on his recent campaign. I would advise any candidate, however, to keep clear of Rick Howell.

Comments