RK ARCHIVE - Tom Davis Freaks Out!

I apologize that I donGペt have any videos or pictures for this event, just didnGペt think it would be necessary at the time, lessoned learned, I will always have a digital camcorder at all times now.

Today, the Log Cabin Republicans held a fundraiser where Tom Davis spoke. Hypocritical thing here is, that Tom is on the record supporting the Hate Amendment (inserts discrimination into the Virginia Bill of Rights by Gェdefining marriageGォ), and the LCR are a member of the Commonwealth Coalition (the group formed to fight the amendment).

Anywho, me and 1 other staffer and 2 volunteers made up these flyers (had a "paid for and authorized") that stated Tom's record on this issue.

-Supports Marshall-Newman Hate Amendment
-Zero Rating from Human Rights Campaign
-voted for "marriage definition" for US Constitution
-voted against gay adoption, and so on
Turns out that Nick Meads, (his campaign manager) was doing advance, so we gave him a flyer too. At this point, he walks across the streets and gets on the phone frantically pacing back and forth clearly reading the flyer for whoever was on the other side.

About 1/2 hour later, Tom Davis and Jean-Marie show up, Tom Refuses to shake my hand (though Jean-Marie smiled and said hello), then Tom just freaks out and yells "I RAISED $50,000 DOLLARS TODAY AND WAS ON THREE CHANNELS (I assume he means his ads)". I responded by saying "you must be really proud of yourself brother", at this point Tom's face starts to turn red (literally), and Jean-Marie sensing an on coming confrontation, grabs Tom's arm and pulls him into the fundraiser.

My point here is, if you can get under the skin of a 12 year incumbent that easily, is he really fit for office? If a grown man, who should be a statesman yells at 20-somethings, is he really fit for office?

Maybe Tom was just outside of his comfort zone, we all know he votes with President Bush 90% of the time, and the Pres opposes gay marriage, maybe he was on edge that the people at this fundraiser found out he was betraying his voting record, that'd make me nervous too.

If anyone wants to volunteer to "track" Tom Davis and catch his next freak out on video, please e-mail me at nate@hurstforcongress.com

For the Record, Nick Meads was nice, shook our hands and chatted for a bit, then complained I always misspelled his name, it is MeadS with an S, not Mead, my apologies Nick.

Nate de la Piedra is the Online Outreach Coordinator for the Andrew Hurst for Congress 2006 Campaign. The ideas expressed herein belong to Nate de la Piedra and do not necessarily represent those of Andrew Hurst, his advisors, staff, or "The Campaign".

Comments

Priceless!! (summercat - 9/23/2006 7:22:31 AM)

Good for the LCR in seeing beyond their "Republican" designation to the real human rights concerns. I doubt Lincoln would be a Republican today, either.
It will be interesting to see whether Davis chances any more "meltdown" venues in the future.
If Dems can pull liberal Republicans and Libertarians over, they can really go somewhere. And these two groups should indeed in the Democrats'tent on key issues.
I am glad to hear that the Commonwealth Coalition is well-funded. They have published great materials re the amendment, and will hopefully be able to get them in the mail to voters.

Tapes are coming soon (pitin - 9/23/2006 10:21:32 AM)

we've had quite a great response to this diary from people wanting to help catch his next Freak Out on Tape, perhaps we should refer to him as the "FreakOutAdon".

Anywho, my favorite comment from the DailyKos Version

What point was he trying to get across? That he's powerful (or crafty) enough to raise $50,000? That people like him because they saw him on three channels? That he's better than you? That he can kick your ass because he has a pocketful of money? That he's tired from scamming people all day and didn't have the energy for your shit?
Is this where you were supposed to say, "I'm sorry to bother you. I had no idea that you are such an impressive man. I'll leave you alone now."????

And Davis better pray (Eric - 9/23/2006 8:23:35 PM)

that the clock runs out on Hurst before he can introduce himself to enough people in the 11th. I've said it before and I'll say it again: When people get to know Andy they will vote for him. Period. Davis is toast if enough people get to know Andy.

Oh, and thank you for giving Andy's name to those Democrats. They didn't hear about him before but they know now.

Partisan (blackamerican - 9/24/2006 8:07:30 PM)

You call me extremely partisan and right wing, because I do not agree with you. From all the posting and comments you have written about republicans, I could return the comment and say that you are an extremely partisan left wing democrat. But I will not, I choose to see your positions and beliefs to simply be different and contrary to my beliefs. But thanks for labeling me and trying to pigeon hole me.

I only point out things that I have seen and witnessed. I am sorry that many do not know your candidate Hurst. I will continue to let those dems that I come across that do not know him, that Hurst is real and running against Davis.

By the way, if Hurst had stated something that I believed in, I would give him credit for it. But, I have not heard him saying anything that I agree with yet.

The Progressives need to use media more (Rebecca - 9/23/2006 10:57:27 AM)

The progressives need to utilize media more. I have been looking frantically for a DVD of the Hurst/Davis debate so I can make copies. If the Dems were smart they would be filming these things, making large amounts of copies and giving them to undecided voters. They do have records of who they are.

No reflection on any one individual, but the Dems and Progressives have a chance to change the face of campaigns if they would be smarter at using media.

A classic example of using the media well is the way the Webb staff publicized the Macaca incident. Just think about what would(n't) have happened if this hadn't been caught on film.

Along these lines we need to film everything, including debates. Andy Hurst did a fantastic job at the debate with Tom Davis, yet where is the record of this? If we don't have a film of this to help with the campaign a great opportunity has been lost. If anyone knows how I can get a DVD of this debate please e-mail me and let me know.

fasalon@hotmail.com

Cable times for the Hurst debate (Andrea Chamblee - 9/23/2006 9:13:46 PM)

on Channel 10

Anyone have any ideas for a get-together to watch it? I'm not sure too many public watering holes show Channel 10.

10/06 @4p

10/07 @930p

10/11 @630p

10/21 @930a

Hmmm... (Henry M - 9/23/2006 12:08:40 PM)

Bristling at criticism? Taking someone to task for questioning his support of an unpopular piece of legislation? Who else in public office does that...hmmm, let's see... who could it be...

GEORGE W. BUSH.

Looks like Davis and Bush are not only kindred spirits on the right-wing legislative agenda, but also in their public persona.

Support Andy Hurst!

Horrible Post (Too Conservative - 9/23/2006 12:36:12 PM)

This is the worst post i have ever read on raising kaine.

Your point is stupid....

If you believe you actually worried Davis, then you're mistaken. I believe he has more important things to worry about then flyers at a gay event...

...say like the national debt, Iraq war, and helping reduce the tide of illegal immigration.

As far as Nick Meads, why should anyone on any campaign ever talk to bloggers again if every little hand gesture is posted up on sites to see?

I commend bloggers like ben trib. for realizing what to post and what not to post, and this was surely not a cause for one.

TC, I believe the post (Eric - 9/23/2006 1:05:03 PM)

is about Davis' reaction. You may very well be right that Davis isn't worried about those flyers, but it is perfectly reasonable to bring up Davis' demeanor regardless of what he's reacting to.

If this happened as described (I wasn't there so I can't verify), then Davis was not displaying the persona that he's known for in the 11th. And as such, it's worthy of discussion.

If you interpret the reaction differently please feel free to debate it. But to say that this post is completely off base is taking it a bit far.

Canvassing for Davis (libra - 9/23/2006 7:49:21 PM)

blackamerican (maybe) sez:
"[...]I came across several democrats who expressed their desire to vote for Davis. When I inquired as to why they were for Davis and not Hurst, many stated that they didn't know who Hurst was."

Uh-huh; most unlikely reason.

According to the Prex, there are, always, only two optionss -- either you're with us or you're against us. However, those with an IQ higher than room temperature usually have a third option; stay out.

If I were a dedicated Dem, I'd vote party line, whether I knew who the candidate was or not. If I were a "temperate" Dem" or an independent, I would try to find out more before I decided. If I were unable to find out enough about the candidates to decided -- not even by Nov 7 -- then I wouldn't vote for *either*.

Our district -- 6th -- doesn't have a Dem running against Starbucks (good latte), either known or un-known. So, am I gonna vote for him, just because he's the only option on the ballot? Like h**l; I'll cast my vote for Webb, thank you very much, say "heck, no" to the d****d sand-in-the-eyes ammendment, and exit. And I won't be the only one; my DH taught me that "technique" loooong ago (as soon as I got mycitizenship). Doesn't mean that Starbucks won't get elected, but it'll be telling when the totals are counted and the two Senate contenders rack up twice as many votes (between them) as he does.

There still being plenty of time in which Hurst can make himself known (if he hasn't already), I can't immagine any Dems to have made a committment to vote for the other side, except in your wet dreams. Especially not for such a flimsy reason; one may switch party allegiance because one likes "the other" candidate better than one's own. Or because one learnt to hate one's own candidate. But ignorance has never been enough of a spur.

So I think you're lying, for whatever reason.

Lying??? (blackamerican - 9/24/2006 8:17:35 PM)

First, I have met many Dems who are voting for Davis because they know the man. I think you need to understand that most people tend to vote for people who they know and have met. People whether democrat or republican who simply vote for someone simply because they are toting the party line are not exercising their franchise smartly in my opinion. Many people have died in the struggle to allow blacks in america to vote. I will not simply vote for someone because I am of the same political party as they are. If the candidate does not believe in the things that I believe in and does not have the values that I believe in, then I will not vote for him.

You are a naive and foolish person to think that people do not vote for candidates in the other party. Have you ever heard of Reagan Democrats? I have no reason to lie on this blog.

Davis Freaking Out (libra - 9/23/2006 7:54:43 PM)

"This is the worst post i have ever read on raising kaine.

Your point is stupid....

If you believe you actually worried Davis, then you're mistaken."

Said Too Conservative.

So, OK; that was not the reason he freaked out. What *was* the reason in your opinion? Several commenters offered their suggestions and I'll add one more: PMS.

Take your pick; no charge and and you're welcome.

The Marshall-Newman Amendment (TomG - 9/23/2006 8:37:46 PM)

I hope Channel 10 will soon release the tape of the amazing debate of last Tuesday between Andrew Hurst and Tom Davis soon. Andy was poised, articulate and unintimidated by Tom Davis. He showed his gravitas and leadership skills, and more importantly vision for where the district and the country should be heading. Tom Davis, in contrast was brittle and hostile throughout the debate. His position was clear. He�䏭 Tom Davis. How dare anyone challenge him and his ambitions for his political future? The arrogance of entrenched power permeated his performance. But the most startling contrast between Hurst and Davis was the response to the question from the League of Women Voters' moderator about the candidates�� position on this amendment. Davis gave a terse 15 second, amazingly internally inconsistent response. He is opposed to discrimination (really?) but will nevertheless vote for the amendment. (He's such a Republican partisan! How can he possibly be the representative of the residents in Nova?) Andy, in contrast spelled out his strong religious faith, but his clear opposition to amending the Virginia constitution to deprive Virginia residents of their rights. This video should be widely distributed to show the clear choice between Andy Hurst and Tom Davis. Hurst is the clear choice.

Tommy Can You See Me? (vote-left - 9/23/2006 8:52:04 PM)

This is Tom Davis' photo on September 11, 1998.

What was Tom Davis doing on September 11, 1998 might you ask?

Well, according to this web site, Davis voted to make public the Ken Starr report by having it posted on the internet. This vote by Davis, according to this web site, contradicted his vote to outlaw pornography on the internet.

And then we have Davis with typical right-wing (Bush, Rumsfeld, Rove, et. al.) hand gestures:

And, this photo below seems to show how Mr. Davis feels when he has to stand within three feet of an African-American. Mr. Davis looks like he wants to scream "GET ME THE HELL OUT OF HERE!!!"

And, that photo is from the "reform.house.gov" web site. Poor Tom.

Tom Davis - The Mafia Shakedown Man for The RNCC (totallynext - 9/23/2006 10:29:09 PM)

Sept. 21, 2006 | 2:39 p.m. ET
GOP Warning: We�胩e Watching Your Money

Hilary Rosen

Hardball the Republican way is in full force on Capitol Hill in anticipation of this upcoming close election. National Republican Campaign Committee Chair, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) -- the guy responsible for rounding up the money to fund the re-election of the House Republicans -- gathered a group of Republican lobbyists to give them a stern warning. Don�脌 try and hedge your bets and start giving to Democrats between now and election day, he warned. We at the campaign committee will be watching your contributions, he warned. And we will share the news of your contributions to Democrats with other members of the Republican caucus, he warned.
In other words, lobbyists who want to continue to receive favors from the Republicans who control the Congress had better keep playing ball. This story was reported this week in the Capitol Hill newspaper of record, Roll Call, and then it was done. No fuss, no outrage, no onslaught of accusations of corruption. Why? Because this has been the Republican way of doing business since they took control of Congress. It doesn�脌 even faze Washington anymore.
A sitting member of Congress threatens the use of the public policy process in retaliation to anyone who supports the other party�䏭 agenda of environmental safety, healthcare access, education, civil rights and most importantly, rejecting special interest politics. Unabashed threats. Corrupted process. Anything to stay in power.
It begs the question: What do those loyal contributors get �� what have they gotten -- by playing along and keeping the contributions to the Republicans? Whatever it is, it can�脌 be good for most of us.
http://www.msnbc.msn...