Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Cuccinelli's Election Post-Mortem

Fresh from my e-mail In-box:

So much has already been written about the election, that I'm frankly a bit wary of adding 2 more cents to the mix, but here's my very short summary... for now. My final judgment on this election will not be made for three more months when I can see the voter rolls and see who actually showed up. I suspect that many people on our favorable lists simply stayed home, as we didn't even pull our base vote numbers here in parts of Fairfax County. First, for those of you around Virginia, it is my opinion that the Democrat wave was particularly strong in NoVa. And I think the simple reason for that is our close proximity to, and focus on, Washington D.C. The incredible increases in the size and scope of government under our current GOP leadership finally began to come back to haunt us starting with the massive and pork-ridden transportation bill this summer. I will digress here, and go back one year to June 2004 and remind folks of the unsuccessful attempt to institute real spending restraint in the House of Representatives by imposing a variety of spending restrictions. That effort was beaten back by the more senior members of the GOP, including some of our own delegation. At the time, I commented that the spending issue was going to be a major problem for the GOP if we didn't get it under control. The severe feelings of the GOP base regarding the out-of-control spending on capitol hill compounded the difficulties we already faced because of the split over the 2004 tax increases here in Virginia. I believe that even some anti-tax Republicans in Del. Dick Black's district stayed home because they said to themselves, "Well, even if Dick will keep fighting taxes, so what? I vote Republican, they control both houses, and I get a tax increase anyway. I can skip voting and get 20 more minutes of sleep and the outcome is the same." If the GOP is not AT LEAST the party identified with holding the line on the growth of government, and with tax cutting, then we're going to continue to struggle to get out our own base. Again, in Virginia, the political problems resulting from the 2004 tax hike have been compounded because of the free-spending Republicans in Washington, helping to create the perfect storm against the GOP in 2005. Obviously, we were not helped by the performance at the top of our ticket, as all of our delegate candidates in NoVa polled ahead of Jerry as he lost Fairfax 60 to 37. That is not a margin that can be made up elsewhere in the state. The good news? Given how tough this year was for the GOP, we only lost two net seats in the House, and we appear to have picked up one statewide office (barely). But in NoVa the breakdown is now 16 Dems to 10 GOP, and it is trending against us. My district is on what I call "the purple line." The dividing line between the red and the blue precincts -- in fact, that line pretty much runs through my district. Here in Northern Virginia, clearly the biggest blow was losing conservative leader Dick Black from the House of Delegates. That was truly a tremendous blow, but we need to regroup and fight back. It is already clear that in 2007, for an unprecedented third election in a row, I will be the Democrats' #1 target in the Commonwealth. In fact, at one of the Dems' victory parties, in addition to all of their campaign signs, they had one more, it said: "Cuccinelli, You Are Next." We shall see. With your help, that sign will prove to be a waste of paper. Sincerely, Senator Ken Cuccinelli

25 Comments:

At 11/16/2005 12:29:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When's Ken going to run for President? (Or, at the very least, Virginia Attorney General.)

When need more men and women like him in office!

 
At 11/16/2005 12:43:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Riley, you left out the stuff about the paintball fundraiser. That was truly funny! You should have left it in.

 
At 11/16/2005 01:06:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Oh, how dare he! Isn't Ken suggesting that so-called "moderates" turned off the base, and were therefore responsible for the GOP's poor showing? Gee, if only Chairman Sean were there to fix it.

Why is this valid when Ken says it, but dead wrong and evil when I say it?

 
At 11/16/2005 01:06:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dick Black and Ken Cuccinelli voted against the tax increase but then to spend every one of the $1.5 billion surplus it generated. They may be tax foes but they are spending friends -- and we real conservatives will get Cuccinelli in two more years!

 
At 11/16/2005 01:29:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Thank you anon.

I have noticed how all of Jim Youngs posts do not involve anything except emotion anymore, because he never has a leg to stand on.

I like Senator Cuccinelli, but I can't understand why his wing of the party are blocking out the "conservative" races they just supported.

Craddock and Golden WERE associated with anti-tax, they WERE associated with stopping run away growth, and they lost in LANDSLIDES.

Warner's tax increase, which constantly polls above 60% for approval, how could that hurt our party in NOVA? If Mr.Cuccinelli didn't realize, Mr.Parrish won, and Tom Rust went unopposed.

And what about Delegate Albo Mr.Cuccinelli? How did he win in a district that is historically MORE democrat than Golden or Craddocks?

Without directly saying it, he states that Kilgore lost us the delegate elections in NOVA. I once again disagree.

I hate to say it..but I am continually agreeing with NOVA Scout on this, if Reese and Dillard would have stayed , even with their tax vote, we would have won.

I believe in Loudoun, maybe Dick Blacks removal was a positive. He would have been impossible to beat in a primary, so this way next round we can put up a Republican who can stay in office , and doesn't send out mailers to their constituents, warning them of the "homosexual agenda".

 
At 11/16/2005 01:42:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

The problem with your logic is, what's the use of wining elections if our candidates are going to continue to work against our conservative principles? I for one am not interested just in winning elections, but actually doing things that will make our State more free and prosperous.

Also anon, I believe Cuccinelli and Black wanted the surplus over and above the rainy day fund returned to taxpayers. When that was defeated, there pretty much is no choice but to spend the money since I believe the state is not allowed to run surpluses beyond the rainy day fund limit.

 
At 11/16/2005 01:44:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This again proves how LIBERAL Too Conservative truly is!

 
At 11/16/2005 01:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave Albo's plan to lower the penalty for child molestation put him over the top in this district. Kilgore was not a factor.

 
At 11/16/2005 02:19:00 PM, Anonymous JB said...

Anon-

To say Cuccinelli is a 'spending friend' is rather ignorant. He would have voted for returning the surplus to the taxpayers. Perhaps you noticed that about 32 of his collegues in the Senate would not have voted to do that. On a 32-8 vote, you lose- I think even you know that.

Let me know how Cuccinelli can single handedly stop the budget process and return the surplus. If you can, then proceed to call him a spending friend. Until then, look at reality.

 
At 11/16/2005 02:44:00 PM, Anonymous Neocon's Love Interest said...

But then how is he such a principled man if he voted in favor of the budget? You cant get what you want so you just go along with everyone else. And this isn't just Cuccinelli, but all the supposed conservative legislators.

MArk my words now. The next battle is over a Taxpayer Bill of Rights if we have any guts in this party.

 
At 11/16/2005 02:53:00 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said...

Too Conservative, of course Reese and Dilliard would have won. Caputo wasnt even going to run against Reese. Kilgore lost Fairfax by 23. Please explain to me how a new delegate (Golden, Mason and Craddock) are supposed to overcome that huge a margin.
I know you don't blame Kilgore for any of this, but it is his fault. When the top of the ticket flounders, usually so goes the rest of the election. We are just lucky we had good candidates under him so we didnt get completely devestated.
I agree that Black losing may not be such a bad thing, assuming we can win the seat back in '07.

 
At 11/16/2005 03:11:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Rtwng...Agreed.

But especially in NOVA, there are never candidates we all agree with 100%.

GOP-The Kilgore campaign distanced themselves in NOVA from Craddock and Golden, now whether this was smart or not I am not sure.

In some of Craddocks precincts, Kilgore outperformed.

Neocons love interest-Agreed.
-Now about your name...

 
At 11/16/2005 03:13:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Well, TC, I have noticed how all of TC's posts do not involve anything except emotion anymore, because you never have a leg to stand on. Instead, you want to blame GOP losses on Conservatives, rather than recognizing that rhetoric like yours gives aid and comfort to the enemy, while the kind of "moderation" you advocate/espouse/rationalize justifies Conservative voters, not activists, staying home. That, and the fact that you so-called "real conservatives" are simply modern Liberals, acting as the tax collectors for the welfare state, in Newt's memorable phrase. For instance, someone here attacks Cuccinelli for, it appears, voting for the budget, never mentioning that the Commonwealth is required to spend that which it collects in taxes. Are Conservatives now to be attacked for fulfilling their duties under the law?!?!

And, of course, how is being an apologist for Mark Warner's tax increase "Too Conservative"? We were conned, and the increase was objectively unnecessary. It was only necessary in the sense that it was politically necessary, i.e., to (1) split the GOP; and (2) for Marky Mark (love that appellation; perhaps better than "the Boyish Governor," which I'm told he hates) to prove his political stones in anticipation of a presidential bid. I suspect that the 60% that you cite as supporting it are the same 60% who supported Jack Rollison's tax con in 2002, and notably didn't show up at the polls.

 
At 11/16/2005 03:21:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim
I have never called myself a moderate. You do not know where I stand on the issues.

What I was saying, before you go all Bolling and twist things...was that I do not believe the Tax vote brought us down in NOVA. I disagree with the tax-vote, and infact wrote an editorial in the paper recently against it.

..And I did not blame GOP loses on conservatives. My thought process was that we needed a NOVA on the ticket.

 
At 11/16/2005 03:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe these comments. Cuccinelli and Black were "forced" to spend all the State money available by the very budget laws that they write -- horrors! Why don't these two Nova legislators simply drive down I-81 and I-64 throwing my tax dollars out the window to Richmond and the rest of the state; at least they would cut out the middle men, er, General Assembly. Please, stop them before they spend again!!!!!!

 
At 11/16/2005 03:40:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Earth to all misinformed bloggers .... Cuccinelli VOTED AGAINST THE BUDGET. Look it up.

 
At 11/16/2005 03:44:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Furthermore, Cuccinelli proposed that the surplus be returned to taxpayers. If you seriously think that Cuccinelli is a big spender, look up all his NAY votes in the Senate. He's known for having his finger "pressed to the red button" on the floor, because he repeatedly votes AGAINST measures to increase spending and taxes.

 
At 11/16/2005 04:07:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

You're right, TC. Even liars hate to be called liars.

But I could be wrong. After all, you still hide in anonymity, and quite frequently, your hatred of me comes through ("repulsed to support candidates they support"), yet you don't -- as far as I know -- even know me.

If your only point is that uncamouflaged regionalism in this race could have saved Kilgore and some Republican candidates, I just cannot agree (it certainly didn't help Leslie Byrne). Substantive races were run by virtually all of the candidates. Even the press' caricatures were caricatures over substance.

As to Anon 3:40 and 3:44, I was merely assuming the accuracy of the statement in chief. If I misrepresented Cuccinelli's position, I apologize to him. I wouldn't begrudge him a vote either way on the final vote.

 
At 11/16/2005 04:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James,

You can look the votes up yourself on legis.state.va.us ....

 
At 11/16/2005 04:20:00 PM, Blogger MR JMS said...

Cuccinelli voted against the original budget, but then voted in favor of most of the Governor's chnages sent back to the Senate that would spend the very additional tax money brought in by the tax increase.

Cuccinelli also voted in-favor of the 2005 budget amendments that spent that additional $1.4 billion surplus.

You all decide what this means, but there are the facts.

By the way- Only Del. Cole voted against the budget amendments spending our surplus in 2005.

 
At 11/16/2005 05:29:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

I'm glad to see Del. Cole changed his ways. After all, it was his decisive vote in committee that allowed the tax increase to go forward in the HoD to begin with.

As to Cuccinelli's votes, I will look into it. However, I do believe he may not have had much choice as I said before, the government cannot carry over a certain level of surplus and the idea of returning the money to taxpayers had already been defeated. This was in fact Cuccinelli's desired solution.

 
At 11/16/2005 07:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cuccinelli will be next.

I hope he enjoys his ouster.

 
At 11/16/2005 07:20:00 PM, Blogger Mother Goose said...

Ouch!

 
At 11/16/2005 07:51:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Such a principled conservative that Mr. Cuccinelli is, he stood up for his principles by being "forced" to spend the billions in surplus on pet projects for other legislators in the rest of Virginia. If only we had others like him,oops, we do, since 139 members of the General Assembly voted to spend the entire surplus earlier this year.

To rephrase an earlier post:

Earth to all misinformed bloggers .... Cuccinelli VOTED to INCREASE THE STATE BUDGET BY $1.5 BILLION in 2005 by spending the surplus generated by the 2004 tax increase that he said was unnecessary. Look it up.

 
At 11/17/2005 10:30:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please, Ken is probably the most solid Republican in the Senate! He's anything but a tax-raiser. You must be smoking something over there anon751.

Anon703 - I've heard that before. No matter how much Dems spend they just can't unseat Ken. (Even when Dems win every other office in his district, he still ends up being victorious!)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home