Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Now...What happened in Fairfax?

Well let me start with the easiest problem to fix:We had no Northern Virginian on the ballot. The Bolling wing of the party screwed itself by his nomination to the position. No one in Fairfax was motivated, the party was split, and people didn't have any reason to go out and vote. As Riley mentioned below, I have NO DOUBT that a Connaughton primary win would have brought victory to Kilgore, sealed the McDonnell deal, lead Mason to a win, and might have even spared Craddock and Golden. The press. From the 67th, to Goldens race, to Blacks, the liberal press took advantage of their positions to smear the candidates into the ground. I can not comprehend why even in the South Riding neighborhood, where Craddock spent most of his resources, he would still lose. As I stated below, Dave Albo was spared by one man alone:Congressman Davis. Albo has been a long time Davis supporter, always supporting Tom's measures, and always supporting the Congressman's deemed Republican(as he did with Connaughton). Albos district is even more liberal than Goldens , but he was saved by Tom's gracious money and grassroots. Kaine. He ran a better campaign up here. Byrne. She is from here. They brought out their core supporters, and we had no base to pull from. No candidate, no ideas for Northern Virginia. So..WHAT NOW? A Bolling/McDonnell victory is interesting for our party. Who will control it?If it's between the two, I have no doubt McDonnell wins a primary or convention for Governor. I feel the only way to win back our seats in NOVA is for the deemed "right" side of the Fairfax GOP is to support Davis/Connaughton's handpicked candidates. We need to realize that the blue will continue to creep out, until we can as a party can put up worthy candidates. A Bolling solo victory, is horrible for Congressman Davis' chances at a higher office. Bolling , who is surrounded closely by Gilmore and Co, seems likely to side with Gilmore over Davis in a primary. We will either have to primary Bill , hope Byrne runs for Governor instead of Warner, or have a STRONG Northern Virginian on the down-ticket. Now is the time for some new ideas, and new leadership in our party.

40 Comments:

At 11/08/2005 11:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know the overlay of districts in Loudoun, but I did note that Caputo, Roemmelt and Poisson all won there.

 
At 11/08/2005 11:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too Conservative,

I think it's a bit early to blame this on the conservative wing of the Party. After all, the most conservative candidates did win.

I think Kilgore's loss had alot more to do with his unwillingness to come out against new taxes definitively and his willingness to suggest we provide unelected boards with the power to tax us for transportation efforts. This made him less than exciting to many fiscal conservatives. His ad campaign was also no doubt part of it. While I felt his ads were factual, many did not like their tone. It's clear from the numbers that both Bolling and McDonnell outdrew Kilgore's numbers so there must have been something about Kilgore that the Republican voters who supported the other two didn't like. I find it hard to believe that it was they found him to be "too conservative" (no pun intended).

The Golden loss is understandable given the demographics of his district. Craddock was more because of his own lack of polish and the willing media being interested in twisting his views. It was not about issues in his loss. Caputo never really spoke about them anyway. I think Caputo will have a harder time of it in two years if he runs.

As for the future: The party does need to come together. However, conservatives should not feel they have to sell out their fundamental beliefs in order to have a coalition. More moderate candidates in the internal parts of FFX County would be a start, but I believe there is still much room for conservatives in the outer parts. We need to find common ground and stop all this name-calling and obstructionism we have been getting from the Good-ole-boys especially in the Senate. If we can do that, perhaps we can recover.

Unfortunately Kaine (like Warner) will not have alot of rope to hang himslef with given the legislature will still be Republican. Barring a huge mistake, this makes the Democrat candidate a difficult one to beat. I think this also was a problem for Kilgore. He had to make a case for change. The Republican legislature will need to think about this as well as they move forward in the next two years. I realize their job isn't technically to position the Republican party for a Gubernatorial win, but they probably shouldn't make the Dem's job too easy.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:04:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

Big disagreement anon-
Golden and Craddock were the hand-picked anti-taxers by VCAP. Golden was too conservative for his district, and Craddock was portrayed as Hitler.

Bill Bolling and the conservative wing did cause a loss in NOVA, and state-wide. Although you are right, Bolling won,I have no doubt he did not win because he was conservative, but because even Democrats voted against the insane Communism of Leslie Byrne.

I have no doubt that if Chap, Puckett, or Baskerville were the nominees, Bolling would not have won.

It is not so much that the conservative wing needs to sell out their fundamental beliefs,but they need to stop attacking Republicans who fit their districts.

Candidates like Connaughton,who hold fundamental beliefs, but do not flail them around are the perfect type of Suburban Republican.
They appeal to the base, while not angering the opposition.

I was yet amazed by how Congressman Davis played this race. Although I do not believe he did enough for Connaughton in the primary, I had respect for his dealings of all of these races. He knows what is best for the party in NOVA.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:14:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It amazes me too conservative that you worked sooo hard for Craddock yet you bash the conservative wing of the party from where he came.

Further, your analysis of the ticket needing a "Northern Virginian" is very mistaken. Would it have helped, perhaps, but it would not have won it. Your longing for Chairman Sean is noted though. The analysis is incorrect because to say that a "northern virginian" would have carried Kilgore to victory, one would think Leslie Byrne, as a Northern Virginian carried Kaine to victory. However the numbers just don't paint that picture. Byrne had less votes than Kaine in NOVA - not leading NOVA, as you would suppose a GOP NOVA candidate would have done for Kilgore. Wishful thinking.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:35:00 AM, Blogger too conservative said...

The swing area Kilgore lasted most decididly was NOVA.

Connaughton against Byrne would have been a cake walk.
..and there is no doubt Connaughton would have out won the rest of the ticket in NOVA.

Craddock does not really come from anywhere. He had thrown his name out for a few previous school board races, not gotten any traction, and was recruited to run this time. I will admit I was skeptical at first, but Craddock has proven to have firm beliefs and principles. If any Republican ever had any doubts, Reese's Caputo endorsement showed his loyalty.

Although his money, and support was mainly on the hard-right side, I know Craddock personally, and he is not an ideologue as he was portrayed.

Loyalty goes far with me regardless of which wing of the party they come from.

I do not bash the right-end, merely state that they were the cause of defeat. A little compromise goes along way.

I am very conservative , and many of my social views are in strict accordance with Chris Craddock.

What I do not like how some of the proclaimed right goes about getting the job done, and how they demonize one entire segment of the party for not being in people's faced about their beliefs.

I stand behind Chris Craddock because he would have followed through on his beliefs, without forgetting who he represented.

 
At 11/09/2005 01:25:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just WHAT about Craddock is NOT an ideologue?

 
At 11/09/2005 04:13:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

I truly believe that everybody is missing the point of these election results, although TC not only touched on it but, in fact, worked for it by his unyielding support of the REPUBLICAN NOMINEE in the general election. He is absolutely correct when he points out that the lesson to be learned here is that Republicans need to stop attacking Republicans. That's not how we turned Virginia into a Republican state in the first place.

Frankly, I believe this is the problem with relying upon primaries to nominate our party's candidates. These primaries are where the attacks started and escalated, washing over into the general election campaigns. I truly believe that the electorate told us with their votes (or should I say lack thereof) that they were fed up with the constant negative attacks. In the days when we nominated our candidates in a convention process where delegates (to the conventions) were elected in mass meetings open to any person who declared themselves to be Republican, we kept the fractiousness in-house and were, more often than not, able to come together and go into the general election united. This is how we became a Republican Majority state. Why did we fix what ain't broken (to paraphrase the cliché)??

 
At 11/09/2005 04:27:00 AM, Blogger AWCheney said...

Upon rereading my remarks, I note that it is a poorly crafted statement...consider the hour. I trust, however, that my point was not lost by my lack of mental elasticity.

 
At 11/09/2005 08:01:00 AM, Blogger Bwana said...

Various thoughts this AM...

1. Kaine won by 100,000 votes statewide. I'd have to see something more than loyal speculation that having Chairman Sean on the ticket in 2005 would have overcome that margin. I don't guess I see where in 2005 Sean C. would either have (a) provided enough of a punch to drastically increase Kilgore's numbers in NOVA and/or (b) provided that uplifting effect amongst evangelicals/movement conservatives to increase base support downstate.

1a. Sean in 2005 notwithstanding, ticket balance must be considered in the future. The GOP runs a risk whenever we ignore either (a) a region-see tickets in 1981, 1985, 2005, or (b) ignore an important geographic type-like the exurbs. I don’t mean to say we can’t win in doing so, but it carries a risk.

2. Virginians have a strong tendency to vote not just on issues, but for officials who "represent" well, and fit a certain model of responsibility and achievement. This I think accounts for some impact in the delegate races: Craddock-at 27 and without a substantial professional background, may simply have come across as too callow to too many voters...and that is before you get to the tongue slips and speeding tickets. Dick Black was likely too ideological for this election, and a little too over the top. Claiming he is unsure how to pronounce his opponents name? That was more than a tad bit juvenile. When his time in Richmond is remembered, he will not be remembered for legislation but for his pro-life mailing to fellow delegates with the plastic fetus’s attached. Golden-the 41st elected Jim Dillard for 20 years, Bush barely won in 2004, and now the GOP expects a much more conservative candidate to win? Golden was not helped by his ongoing claims that Marsden was viciously attacking the Golden family, and then not offering proof.

I tend to think had Golden been the candidate in the 67th, he would have won. He could have offered more substantial professional achievement, and is a better speaker and quicker on his feet than Craddock.

3. AWCheney above suggests that going back to conventions and dumping primaries would make it easier to keep in party harmony. Putting aside the issues of cost (given that registration fees for nominating conventions have been declared unconstitutional), I think AWC’s memory plays her false. I remember state conventions in 1977, 1978, 1981, and 1985, and congressional conventions in 1982 and 1984 , and I remember how each time there was a faction that was ready to or did bolt to the democrats. In fact, I stood next to AWC at a couple of those events. The issue is not what method is used to nominate-the Virginia GOP has shown itself equally capable of eating its young following either a convention or a primary-but whether or not the GOP will be willing to again accept a big tent view of the party and accept that it is impossible in a commonwealth as diverse as Virginia to have a single punch card type of candidate who is guaranteed of winning everywhere. Each jurisdiction has its own needs and likes. The GOP must be willing to go to the public with a philosophy of governing but allow for variances that allow candidates to win.

4. We have to select the best candidates at all levels. I already worry about the potential Bolling for Governor effort. Byrne, with a minimal budget, started to attack him on the the woes of his former company. Can you imagine the negative picture that can be drawn with a larger budget?

The Virginia GOP can prevail, but we have to get back to the 11th commandment, we have to recognize citizen diversity may require candidate diversity, and we have to offer a real plan to govern.

Pretty simple, huh? ;-)

 
At 11/09/2005 08:06:00 AM, Anonymous NoVA Scout said...

AWC: What you say is very clear at any hour and it is a worthy point. But chucking the primary system would have resulted in no difference this time around. At least the primaries provided an opportunity to test the front-runners, to raise public awareness of the candidates and the issues, to engage the fundraising community and for the candidates to learn more about the electorate. A convention strongly favors the party insiders and might well accentuate the weaknesses that led to yesterday's results. All the GOP candidates were party insiders who could have easily packed a convention.

 
At 11/09/2005 09:47:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Gee, let's see, Bolling got more votes in PWC than Kilgore. Frederick has apparently won. Marshall won in a relative walk. McQuigg won. How this translates into "people [in NoVA] didn't have any reason to go out and vote" is nonsense.

'Fact is, Republicans in Northern Virginia "didn't have any reason to go out and vote" for Kilgore because, in part, Kilgore didn't give them any reason to get out and vote. This is borne out by the fact that Bolling and McDonnell BOTH did better in Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria than did Kilgore.

Sounds a lot like O.P. Ditch's (whom I suspect to be a contributor to this blog, if not the author of the post-in-chief) comment to me at the PWC "victory" party last night to attempt to blame Kilgore's loss on the principled wing of the GOP, rather than on Kilgore's failure to motivate the electorate, in part, and on the failure of the Connaughton Cult of Personality wing to show the same loyalty to principled candidates that they demand for so-called "moderate" candidates.

The fact is that the people that Connaughton "brought in" to the GOP never showed up again. Witness his attempt to pack the County Committee last year. Most of those were gone after they missed three succeeding meetings, per the party plan. To be sure, a few Connaughtonites --- notably Jane Beyer --- who were preexisting activists did what they always do, and worked hard for victory. But the simple fact is that most of those "brought in" by Connaughton were "brought in" only for his purposes, and quickly disappeared when they didn't get their way.

Kilgore's bath in Northern Virginia can't be blamed on the Conservative grass roots, which was out for him. It can be more appropriately blamed upon his virtual abandonment of Northern Virginia (I think this is the main reason), a misstep on the death penalty ads, the fact that he was -- in some ways -- a flawed candidate, and his failure to take a principled stand on taxes. The fact is that the business community in Northern Virginia was behind him.

Kilgore's loss was a personal one. It can't be blamed upon those who believe that the GOP should be about principles first.

 
At 11/09/2005 09:57:00 AM, Anonymous NoVa Scout said...

I knew we could count on you, James.

 
At 11/09/2005 10:37:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Jim, good post.

Too Conservative, you say some things that make sense, but you miss part of the point.

"What I do not like how some of the proclaimed right goes about getting the job done, and how they demonize one entire segment of the party for not being in people's faced about their beliefs."

Could it possibly be that some in the "moderate" wing of the party spend too much time in people's faces demonizing conservatives' beliefs? I think of some of the actions of Reese (remember his quote about spending 14 years fighting the "extremists"?), Chichester, Potts, Barry (formerly) to name a few. These are who I was speaking about above when I posted anonymously about the Good-ole-boys. I have no problems with moderates in the party, but they for one should not masquerade as conservatives in order to get elected only to switch their positions when they vote (Reese did), and they also certainly shouldn't be attacking the conservative wing of the party on a regular basis, something that many of them do. It cuts both ways.

 
At 11/09/2005 10:45:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

One other thing. I appreciate your support for Craddock. I agree with your assessment on him. However, I am willing to bet if you would spend as much time getting to know some of the other conservatives in the party, you might come to a similar conclusion about them. I may have a bit of a chip on my shoulder, but to me, I do not hate moderates if they are true to their convictions and up-front about them (same goes for liberals for that matter). I may disagree with them on issues, but I do not hate them. I do not have time for people who say one thing and do another though.

On the other hand there appears to me to be a visceral hatred within many in the "moderate" wing toward conservatives. This may be only my impression, but I believe it to be a major factor in the party being able to come together.

 
At 11/09/2005 11:07:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Candidates like Connaughton,who hold fundamental beliefs, but do not flail them around are the perfect type of Suburban Republican."

Well, he certainly seems to flail them around when I get my new property tax assessment every year.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:20:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Reese is not a moderate member of our party, Reese is not even in our party anymore.

I do not feel the "moderate" wing of the party hates conservatives, but instead wants to win elections.

It is usually not personal when a moderate runs in a primary, but when someone runs from the right, it is.

Jim-sometimes you make perfect sense, and sometimes you go out of the ballpark.

Anyone who says Connaughton , or any other repectable Northern Virgninian on the ticket would not have helped is simply out of touch with the voters, and can not see past their own bias.

Connaughton himself being from PWC would have crushed in his homecounty-which obviously the Republican base is beginning to erode from, and also tighten the race in Fairfax, and raise margins in Loudoun, Spotsy, and Stafford.

The turnout is still down. In the county next to the Capitol of the free-world we get..what 44% turnout for this election?
McQuigg , Marshall, and Frederick were incumbents, with Marshall and McQuiqq having been in a few terms.
The real indicator here, was not our ability to hold seats, but how many we lost.
Black fit his district back in 1907, but with the influx of Northerners, and out pouring of Fairfax residents to Lo Co, you simply cant just send out a mailer proclaiming "my opponent will support the homosexual agenda" and win the election. Rtwing-this is a prime example of a "conservative", who has lost my respect.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:22:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

also Jim
-The base was not out for him.

I worked the same precincts I have always worked for the past 7 years , and saw the same faces who came up to vote for Bush/Wolf and others.

This year people would express their anger with the Republican party while walking up to vote.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:24:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

Rtwng Extrmst, right back at you. Great post. There's not one single thing that you say or intimate that I don't agree with (including kudos to support for Craddock).

It is certainly ironic that self-styled "moderates" wear their contempt/hatred for the so-called "right wing" on their sleeve, while consistently attacking the so-called "right wing" for the same sins.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:29:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

TC, it truly takes a member of the Connaughton Cult of Personality to suggest that he, with his Liberal/muddled message on taxes and spending, would have done anything but aggravate the GOP situation in Northern Virginia. Unless you're conceding that so-called "moderates" supporting Connaughton sat on their hands, an accusation I didn't make, and didn't supporting Bolling and the rest of the ticket. In any case, get over it: Connaughton lost, as did Kilgore. What did they have in common? A muddled message on taxes and spending. Who won? Candidates who kept the GOP faith.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:38:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-
Where do you get your information?
I am out there, talking to voters, working for candidates, I KNOW he would have helped. There is no question to it.

His "muddled" tax message, would have ALSO helped the GOP situation, because he would have been the ONLY one who had a great record on transportation, and education, the two largest issues now in NOVA.

Had Bolling been in Kilgores shoes, he would have lost by an even more decisive margin against Kaine.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:41:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

I have no hatred towards any specific faction of the party.

The facts remain, that the VCAP side failed, with Bill Bolling NOT winning on principle, or ideas..of which he had none, but instead winning on shear hatred for Byrne.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:46:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

So, let's see if I understand this, TC. Conservatives (Bolling; McDonnell) win because Liberals run lousy candidates, and RINOs win because they're in touch with the electorate.

I can only assume that you weren't in PWC when we took it away from the Dems in the Nineties by running unabashedly Conservative candidates.

I know it's your publication, but your conclusion is too self-serving to be sustained. And it sure doesn't explain why Bolling and McDonnell got more votes than Kilgore in virtually every major NoVA jurisdiction. At least as good a case can be made that Kilgore was a DRAG on a ticket that would have done much better with another candidate at the top.

 
At 11/09/2005 12:58:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

So, what can we do to bring the party, especially in PWC, back together? Do we need to hold an Advance modeled on the RPV version in order to get all wings of the party in one place and finding common ground without compromising principles?

I can't believe it, but somehow I find myself becoming more conservative every day and I've always been pretty darn conservative. I'm to the point now where I think that giving 25 year prison sentences to child molesters is going easy on them. I'm not to the point where I think they should receive the death penalty...yet. Just life imprisonment on the first strike.

 
At 11/09/2005 01:22:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Riley,

I don't have the complete answer here, but I think the education issue is a good place to start. Someone needs to make a compelling case that our current system is broken and all the spending in the world is not gonna fix it without fundamental changes. As it is now, no-one has been able to make this case and the Dems hang this around conservatives' necks in every election saying conservatives "want to destroy public education" if they don't come out in support of every spending increase or bond issue the education lobby brings forth. This would be a huge leg-up for conservatives who unlike the dems would have you believe actually are FOR better public education, it's just in how you get there.

 
At 11/09/2005 01:41:00 PM, Blogger Bwana said...

In the post 2005 gubernatorial world, how do you folks want to deal with men like Harry Parrish (R-50)?

30 years of municipal electoral experience before going to the House in 1981 (first elected GOP in Prince William County), Long time conservative voter, led the ticket in his House district by margins of 13%-18%. He voted for the Warner Tax plan, which led to him being labeled a RINO and a primary challenge by Steve Chapman last spring.

Disclaimer: Harry is also a family friend who grew up in Manassas with my father.

Harry is certainly not a liberal. I doubt the moderates consider him a moderate, but clearly many conservatives do not consider him a conservative.

So, as a general question (and putting aside issues from the Chapman primary), what should the party do with men like Harry? Celebrate diversity and welcome under the GOP Big Tent? Ride them out on a rail? Tolerate them until they retire or are defeated in a primary?

I ask your opinions on this because with a third of the House delegation voting for the tax plan, there clearly is a difference of opinion on matters such as these. We are going to have to clear the air on stuff like this before we can all get back to rowing together in the upcoming elections.

And lets remember the stakes in 2009…if a democrat is elected governor in 2009 he/she will have an override proof veto, which might have significant ramifications in redistricting.

 
At 11/09/2005 01:43:00 PM, Anonymous Not James Young said...

"His "muddled" tax message, would have ALSO helped the GOP situation, because he would have been the ONLY one who had a great record on transportation, and education, the two largest issues now in NOVA."

You've got to give me recipe for the Kool-Aid at "Connaughtontown", it would come in handy on the weekends when I could choose to live in an alternate universe free from the reality of the "needs" of my children.

You really need to lose your irrational position as regards a Kilgore/Connaughton ticket. I would suggest that the combination of the aimlessly drifting, messageless campaign of Kilgore and the "muddled" tax message of Connaughton would have produced an even greater disaster in NOVA, if not statewide, as that package would have prompted me to take my fingers off my nose while voting for Kilgore and instead just stay home.

Rather than support such a ticket, I may have preferred to have Leslie Mikulski, err Byrne in Richmond with the expectation of capitalizing on the record of her tenure four years down the road.

It wasn't the conservative base that lost the governorship, it was a combination of the Party leadership's selection process, a poor if not absent campaign strategy, a local electorate energized against the GOP by candidates such as Dick Black who not only shot himself but the party in general with his comments and whining RINOs like yourself who have turned off many local Republicans. Yes extremism is an issue that needs to be addressed to avoid the impact of campaign like that of Black but you also need to remember that there are at least two extremes for each platform and you, on the other extreme, are just as dangerous.

Your continued whining about disaffected moderates, moderates who actually turned out to vote see: Bolling victory, and your intractable position with regard to Sean "The Tax Cutter" Connaughton does as much damage locally as Dick Blacks "homophobic" campaign in Loundoun.

Please quit acting like a five year and let the air out, you're not impressing anybody by turning blue and stomping your feet.

Truth be told, the reason you don't get more support and help from loyal party members is that they can't stand being around you pompous arrogant idiots.

Lastly, what makes you think that Davis will continue to support Lord Connaughton given his primary loss and PWC going to Kaine. Rumor has it he has actually already withdrawn his support which explains several recent flip flops by the chair.

 
At 11/09/2005 02:19:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading the various posts on this thread gives a very clear indication of why the Republicans had their clocks cleaned up in NOVA -- stop the mud slinging and butt grabbing and start focusing on how to win and retain elective offices up here. If you don't, the party is going to be toast, both locally and statewide.

 
At 11/09/2005 02:34:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Anon-
I love the factual basis to any of your claims.

Bwana-I like Parrish

Riley-Agreed about the growing conservatism.

 
At 11/09/2005 02:38:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

anon 2:19-
The arguement here is baseless.

Anyone who argues against the fact that a NOVA candidate wouldn't have helped the election results, is out of touch.

After last night, the cries from the right in NOVA will only come from a small minority, which will continue to shrink in our party in NOVA.

 
At 11/09/2005 02:52:00 PM, Anonymous Not James Young said...

You're still holding your breath. The issue is not whether a NOVA candidate would have helped the results, but rather whether your NOVA candidate would have helped. The mere geographic location of the candidate is irrelevant if it is an unacceptable candidate. As to the "conservative minority" shrinking in NOVA, you really need to cut back on the Kool-Aid.

Which leads to my last thought, given you posts over the past several weeks, I have come to the conclusion that you are not "Too Conservative" or even a member of the GOP but rather, an agent provocateur for the DNC, is your last name Byrne?

 
At 11/09/2005 03:29:00 PM, Blogger Hirons said...

Why do I find myself agreeing with so much that Jim Young has to say in this post? My goodness you cannot assume Connaughton on the ticket would have brought reverse coattails to the race. I like Sean as much as the next guy, but really what would have he brought? Maybe won PWC for Kilgore by a point or two - but that's about all I could see.

Bolling and McDonnell a principled and they won by just being themselves. You can't take that away from them. Hats off to conservatives who can win being conservatives!

As far as what the party needs to do to come together - get our damn act together - get our message out in clear messages not 30 second sound bites - i.e. hit the streets! Find candidates willing to fight to the end when they decide to take on incumbent Republicans and defeat them in the primary. There was a comment last night that Craddock had done a good job in knocking off a Rino - what about the general election dope? Just knocking off a Rino does not justify losing a seat to the D's. I'd take a Rino over a D. just about anywhere. That's why I thank god Harry Parrish defeated Steve Chapman in the primary. Had Chapman won that primary the D's would have found a candidate better than Shumaker to have kicked the crap out "Pimp my Ride" Stevo.

Is this the wake up call Republicans state-wide and nation-wide need to say he we like being in the majority and we're going to fight to keep them!

Thank goodness we have the Allen '06 race to get us pumped up again next year! Has Byrne announced for that race yet? Sure would be fun to kick a liberal around for the next 12 months.

 
At 11/09/2005 04:09:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

That's right anon.

I am a liberal, based on the fact I want the Republican party to win.

Scott-Sean himself would have, but even another NOVA Republican would have done the same.

I was at the polls in Western Fairfax, I knocked on thousands of doors, and I have spoken to thousands of constituents.

They all had the same problem=no one on the ticket galvanized them to go out and vote.

Especially in the Mason race, where Mason would have been ideologically similar to a Davis pick, we could have sqeaked by to a victory.

As Jerry Bill and Bob had pretty much given up NOVA, a Northern Virginian would have helped bring out the thousands of Republicans who seemed to stay home.

Congressman Davis usually supports the right candidates.
I agree 100% with his simple logic-A Northern Virginia brings out NOVA Repubs.

 
At 11/09/2005 04:18:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

NJY, you certainly aren't, since I don't think I've ever engaged in the intellectual whiplash that your post gave me.

But if you were JY, you wouldn't be talking about Sean's "great record on transportation, and education" as if he actually had both. Truth be told, Sean has very little to do with either, since education is the School Board's responsibility, and transportation projects completed under his watch have been on the drawing boards for decades. The most that he's done for either is crowd both with his attitude toward uncontrolled growth (which, of course, guaranteed him the support of the developers' lobby). You know, except for his support for the far Left teachers' unions, whose answer to every educational shortcoming is "Pay us more money!" I will, however, give him some credit for getting transportation projects moving. With the additional 50% in taxes I'm paying since he came into office, he damned well better.

And no one who uses "homophobic" in a sentence or as an accusation is a "conservative," except on Bizarro World.

And Scott, to answer your question, because it's right. BTW, I hope that whosoever monitors such stuff will note that I haven't had a nasty word to say about our nominees since they won the nomination (not that I can recall, anyway), even though not all of my candidates (Steve Baril) won the nomination. Were it that self-styled "moderates" applied the same standards.

And BTW, as for Craddock, there is much to be said for "Buckleys for Lieberman," i.e., it is less damaging to the GOP to have a Dem in office when the alternative is a Republican who acts like a Dem. To be sure, Craddock should have received more support. But having a Dem in that seat does less harm to the GOP than having a Repubmocrat who confuses the voters over that for which a Republican stands.

 
At 11/09/2005 04:57:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Jim-
Why is it..if Connaughton and Davis and Reese and Parrish, and all these other Liberals are so tax-raising that they are our elected representatives?

Why would the people trust them with their money, to do what is right?

Why would candidates such as Craddock and Golden and Black lose then but Dave Albo win?

 
At 11/09/2005 05:13:00 PM, Anonymous Not James Young said...

Mr. Young, I din't speak to Sean's "great record on transportation, and education" I merely quoted a previous post to serve as an example of the mindset of those who drink the Connaughton Kool-Aid. I should have been more clear.

As to the use of the term "homophobic", your response actually supports my point. Numerous blogs, websites, letters, etc. have referred to Mr. Black in that context and other similarly derogatory terms. Again, even if baseless, continued attacks of that nature hold the potential for damage not only to the instant candidate's campaign but also to anyone else on the party's ticket, in a sort of guilt by association.

The point being, even if one believes them, there are some things that are better left unsaid, a maxim that has even more relevance in the present era of instant communication. By continuing to respond to critics of earlier comments, Mr. Black's actions only served to dig the hole deeper and energize more people in opposition to his candidacy. No big deal for Kilgore if Black had been a Dem, but he isn't, and as Kilgore didn't do much to dissociate himself from Black's comments, he bore the brunt of a least a portion of the anger aimed at Black in Loundoun.

 
At 11/09/2005 05:21:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Reese won't be anymore in January.

Craddock didn't lose because of his position on taxes, neither did Black (but he's a different story).

Golden is in too liberal of an area, I agree a more moderate Republican is probably all that can win there unless the Dem is an extreme lib a la Leslie Byrne type.

Albo is an entrenched incumbant.

The problem with incumbants is they are very hard to unseat within the party and as I've said before it is very difficult to field a good candidate in a primary against an incumbant whether the challenger is moderate, conservative, or anything else. They are just too scared of the political ramifications to run. This is why in the end Craddock lost. It had nothing to do with the issues. He was a good guy, but he was not ready for prime-time in public speaking. This gave the dems and the press enough to spin him into their typical extremist/bigot/homophobe mold and trash his reputation before the public. Of course none of this was true, but in the world of sound bites and headlines, no-one cared.

Now the GOP is better off without Reese who was straying far from the foundational principles of the party. If Reese had not misrepresented himself as a conservative originally, we would not be in this mess. In fact, had the conservatives not run two candidates against him in the original open primary, he never would have been there to begin with and we wouldn't be talking about this, but I digress.

It will be easier to unseat an incumbant Dem Caputo with an experienced candidate in two years when Caputo has an established record and cannot hide from it. In the meantime, Caputo will not be able to do much damage and we will be watching his votes.

Craddock did good for the party. He came up short of the total prize, but we are parted from a Republican who was not a Republican in deed (apparently one who hated the party for at least 14 years by his own words). This is a step in the right direction.

Nothing against moderates in the right races, but I think you are overselling that conservatives can no longer win in western Fairfax and Loudoun.

 
At 11/09/2005 05:41:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

My apologies, NJY; sometimes my wit is lost upon the reader, as well. Sometimes, it is just lost.

TC, to answer your question, at least in part: just like Bolling, they were blessed by opponents who, in comparison, made them look good (particularly Tom v. Leslie). BTW, I never criticized Tom as "tax raising." I've always supported Tom because, among other things, as compared favorably to Sean, he's willing to support conservatives and, also compared favorably to Sean, I've never known him to gratuitously screw conservatives.

 
At 11/09/2005 07:21:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I especially agree with this line in TC's post: “Now is the time for some new ideas, and new leadership in our party.”

We clearly need to make some changes in Fairfax County and probably all of NOVA. IMHO, we simply start too late to really organize for these races. For instance, in my part of eastern Fairfax we did not even discuss E-Day strategy in detail until Thursday before the election! That is too late. Some of the more dedicated long-term precinct captains had recruited volunteers to hand out sample ballots all day long only to be told there were no sample ballots to hand out. We instead checked off names of our likely voters and prepared to do a knock and drag operation. Instead, there were not nearly enough volunteers to knock and drag.

Don’t even get me started on the 72 Hour Program. Volunteers for the program were not tasked with assignments until the Thursday or Friday before E-Day. Horrible planning!

Let’s get to work on correcting these problems. I doubt serious stuff like this will be addressed at the Advance, but these issues should be talked about there.

 
At 11/09/2005 07:36:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

Agreed.

Hope to see everyone at the advance!

 
At 11/09/2005 07:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to the State Board of Elections website, Bolling won by 23,000 votes. That means, if less than 12,000 people across the State switched their votes, the underfunded campaign of a very liberal and abrasive candidate would have been successful. Or, if the 45,000 people who voted in the Governors race but not in the LG race voted in the latter race, the results could have been different. Any other Democrat other than Byrne would have won yesterday. I cannot believe that this marginal victory against a very weak opponent is being spun as some sort of mandate.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home