"All Signs" Indicate Allen for Governor in 2009

By: Lowell
Published On: 8/17/2007 8:16:23 AM

Today's Moonie Washington Times reports that George Allen is leaning heavily towards running for Governor of Virginia in 2009, NOT U.S. Senate in 2008:

"Why wouldn't you?" said Craig Shirley, an Alexandria-based Republican strategist, when asked about Mr. Allen's political future in Virginia. "You're young, you're talented, and you've already won statewide office twice."

"All signs point to the fact that he is running for governor," a state Republican insider told The Times. "It makes perfect sense. He liked being governor more than being a U.S. senator, and despite the loss [in the midterm election] he is still the guy who led us out of the wilderness" in the 1990s.

Why wouldn't you?  Because during your last statewide campaign, voluminous revelations about your past came out which were not exactly flattering.  Also, because Virginia is trending purple, eventually blue, and your time may have passed you by as a phony Virginia good ol' cowboy.  Finally, because you'll have opposition from Bill Bolling and Bob McDonnell, although frankly I doubt that either of those two would give you much of a fight for the nomination. 

So, what does everyone think about Gov. George Felix Allen?  Excited about rehashing all the golden oldies, like "macaca," the spitting on women, the CCC, the noose, the 96% lockstep support for George W. Bush, etc., etc?  Hey, what's not to be excited about?  This is politics at its most...absurd? bonkers? fun? what?

P.S.  Aside from Brian Moran and Creigh Deeds, does anyone think that Leslie Byrne would have a shot against George Allen in 2009?  I actually do, given that she only lost by 1 percentage point in 2005, running as an unabashed liberal Democrat.  I had lunch with Leslie a few weeks ago, and I can definitely report that she is tanned, rested, and ready to roll.  The only question is, for what exactly?  Allen vs. Byrne in 2009?  Now THAT would be an interesting race!


Comments



Chris Cillizza "Friday Line" (Lowell - 8/17/2007 9:51:17 AM)
Here's today's Friday Senate Line on Virginia by the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza:

4. Virginia: This race continues to move up The Line based on two assumptions: Sen. John Warner (R) announces his retirement next month and former Gov. Mark Warner (D) quickly enters the race. If either of those events doesn't come to pass, then this race will drop down the rankings. But John Warner does seem set to leave the Senate after more than three decades in office, and Mark Warner is clearly itching to get back into political life following his sudden departure from the presidential race in the fall of 2006. Mark Warner, who left office as one of the most popular governors in the country, would almost certainly have the Democratic primary to himself. Republicans, meanwhile, would likely face a primary between Rep. Tom Davis and former Gov. Jim Gilmore, a race that could expose serious ideological division within the GOP. Regardless of whom Republicans pick, Mark Warner would be a favorite. (Previous ranking: 6)

I'm still not convinced that Mark Warner really wants to run for Senate, but if he does, he'll be a super-strong candidate of course.



How about no flipping way! (beachmom - 8/17/2007 9:54:14 AM)
The guy embarrassed our state.  Jim Webb saved us, as Mark Warner and Tim Kaine have made a lot of headway of cleaning up our state's finances and various other problems.

You have pointed out all of the character issues of George Allen.  We still haven't talked about the fact that Allen isn't the brightest bulb.  I watched SFRC hearings, and it was pretty pathetic when Condi Rice had to explain things to him.  He should not be holding either a federal or a state office.  This goes beyond partisan talk:  the GOP needs to make it clear to him that he does not have a future in politics.  For their own sake as much as all of our sakes.



Who's worse, George Allen or... (Lowell - 8/17/2007 9:57:59 AM)
Jim Gilmore?  Allen may be a boor and a buffoon (and many other things which we won't get into right now), but at least he didn't run the state into a ditch like Jim Gilmore did as Governor!


Playing Devil's advocate for a minute... (Randy Klear - 8/17/2007 10:38:04 AM)
Allen probably figures his chances are pretty good.  He ran against a former Republican with unusual crossover appeal last year and finished close enough to demand a recount; he only refrained because his fellow GOPers had rigged the rules against challengers the year before and basically shot him in the foot.

He's still very popular with his base and not likely to have problems raising money.  He probably figures that if Democrats revert to form and nominate a more traditional liberal (or at least someone who can be painted as one) he can recover the right-leaning independent vote and pull it out.

Unlike Gilmore, Allen can market himself as a successful governor.  (I don't agree, but he left office 10 years ago with a marketable perception of success.)  He will have had 2 years to assess his mishandling of the macaca mess, his Jewish ancestry, the noose, etc., and develop some approaches to limit the damage.  As for his support of Bush, that won't mean much in a state race, especially once that walking puddle of miasma is out of the White House.

And he'll have his usual issues to run on, mostly taxes.  Odds are that by 2009 the two regional transportation authorities will have revenue streams up and running, but the projects they fund will still be a long way from completion.  Anti-tax demagoguery will play a bit better in NoVa and Hampton Roads than it does now, and Allen will work it to the hilt.



Wretch (tx2vadem - 8/17/2007 11:26:28 AM)
First, just the idea of Allen back in the game makes me wretch.  Hold on! I think I just vomited in my mouth a little. 

On your points, I question whether the Anti-Tax position will play better in NoVA and Hampton Roads.  After all, placing the burden on localities, violating the tenets of a Commonwealth, was Republicans' idea.  This was Speaker Howell's cynical plan to take the heat off Republicans on the transportation issue.  So, what argument could Allen make that would be different from a Democratic candidate?  That this was a bad Republican idea? 

Also, I think there is going to be greater anger about these regional transit authorities and efforts to sell our infrastructure to foreign companies (aka HOT lanes).  The entire idea to require government outsourcing to the private sector is another Republican gem. 

Finally, who knows what will happen this year?  If Democrats take control of the GA, then there is a lot of opportunity for them to make government services better.  They are not tied to stupid pledges that prevent them from putting in place wise fiscal policies.



If we play it right (Randy Klear - 8/17/2007 12:06:47 PM)
we can make the point stick that transportation authorities were their idea, not ours.  And we will need to, because the point remains that in the 2009 time frame, the authorities will have made more progress raising money than they will getting projects done.  Highway construction simply does not happen overnight.  And I think you seriously underestimate voters' ability to get upset about having more money taken out of their pockets, especially when it's for a targeted purpose that isn't showing instant results.

I also need to repeat that Webb's victory was a very close run thing, even in those two areas.  Allen won in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.  He only lost Loudoun and Prince William by about 2 percentage points.  He finished that close despite Webb's unique ability to reach across party lines in a campaign that was something of a referendum on Iraq, which will not be an issue in a state election, period.

We cannot afford to underestimate these people. The stakes are just too high.



Oh I agree! (tx2vadem - 8/17/2007 12:49:29 PM)
I am not underestimating voter angst.  And I'll go a step further, most of that money is going to be going to maintenance and not new construction.  New construction is going to be through these "public-private partnerships."  The public will be mad at the lack of progress on traffic abatement as well as the proposed solutions of HOT lanes (aka Lexus Lanes). 

But I think Democratic gains in this election will put more money in Democratic coffers.  And more money gives us greater ability to control the message.  And thus, we can focus voter angst where it belongs, namely the people who created this mess. 

I don't underestimate Republicans' appeal in this state either.  But state politics is shaping up to be more of a war between the urban and rural areas of the state.  And it is a hard case for the Republicans whose base is in the rural areas to say with any authenticity that they will help solve urban problems.  I also think the problem voters have with these taxes is not the concept of taxation in general, but more with the unfairness of its application.  NoVA and Hampton Roads are asked to pick up the cost of running the entire state and then they throw targeted taxes just on us?  Republicans are for higher taxes as long as only the state's urban populations have to pay them.



Run, Leslie, Run! (KathyinBlacksburg - 8/17/2007 10:49:02 AM)


I want a Terry-Allen re-match (JD - 8/17/2007 12:32:46 PM)
I still remember staying up late when I was 12, and crying when Mary Sue Terry lost.  I thought it was the end of the world.  Oh, my naive youth. 

I'm not an insider so I don't know if I'm stepping on a political landmine here, but a Governor Terry would almost be as gratifying to me as a President Gore.  Nothing at all against Byrne, though. 



That would be (spotter - 8/18/2007 8:21:33 PM)
simple justice.


I want a Terry-Allen re-match (JD - 8/17/2007 12:33:25 PM)
I still remember staying up late when I was 12, and crying when Mary Sue Terry lost.  I thought it was the end of the world.  Oh, my naive youth. 

I'm not an insider so I don't know if I'm stepping on a political landmine here, but a Governor Terry would almost be as gratifying to me as a President Gore.  Nothing at all against Byrne, though. 



Evidence? (Colonel Forbin - 8/17/2007 4:42:29 PM)
Where is the evidence that Allen spit on his wife?


Right (Lowell - 8/17/2007 5:40:00 PM)
here.


And also (Lowell - 8/17/2007 5:56:15 PM)
here,


come on (Colonel Forbin - 8/20/2007 1:27:07 PM)
So because his divorce records are sealed, he must have spit on his wife? Pretty weak evidence.


The first story (Lowell - 8/20/2007 1:48:40 PM)
is by a female reporter who says Allen spit on her. First-hand account.  The second story contains this:

Update II: A clue might be in Ryan Lizza's recent piece on Mark Warner that cites a story that had been "making the rounds" about a 2008 presidential contender who "once spit on his wife." That rumor was also about Allen.

True, that's a lot weaker evidence than the first article.  But we also have Allen's sister Jennifer, who wrote a book detailing his sadism, including dragging her upstairs by the hair, holding her over Niagara Falls., etc., etc.  See here for more gory details.  There's a lot more, you sure you really want to open up this can of worms again?