watch this space
Dave Marsden cast a vote with which I disagree. Because he voted the same way JMDD did, I think his vote did nothing to help Chap and might hurt Chap. I commented on Chap's blog to that effect. Chap had nothing bad to say about Dave. Dave and I spoke at length. While he and I agreed to disagree about his vote, we both agreed that Chap and the other Dems need to win this November. Dave is a nice guy who was very generous with his time and views. I can't imagine another candidate for Dave's seat whom I would prefer.
LIT DROP FOR CHAP THIS SATURDAY 9AM AT LAKE BRADDOCK SECONDARY SCHOOL
Thanks to Raising Kaine for posting the following excerpts from an otherwise firewall-hidden Roll Call article on Tom Davis.
*"Davis said unambiguously that he will run for the Senate in 2008 if five-term Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) decides to retire."
*On the other hand, if John Warner runs, Davis says he "would stand out front and take a bullet for him."
*"...regardless of Warner's decision [Davis] has doubts about seeking an eighth term in the House."
*Davis "has little to no interest in other statewide offices such as the governorship."
*Davis almost retired last year, but decided not to do so because it would have gone to the Democrats ("I think had I left last year, which we contemplated doing, [the seat] would have gone. I don't think there's any way you would have held the seat last year")
*Davis argues that "Republicans' old formula for getting elected - managing losses in Northern Virginia and then making it up with large margins in the rest of the state - is outdated and that his party will continue to lose if it does not accept that."
First off, Democrats have to field the best challenger possible for Warner's seat, whether he's running or not.
Secondly, not that I should have to say it, but Davis's continuing diva schtick ought to be ignored ("take a bullet," "the seat would have gone," "old formula"). If Davis ever was worthy of our votes, it's clear he is not now.
Finally, please please please, take the first step this November to boo this horrible Hamlet off the stage by voting for Chap Petersen.
Particularly in light of my most recent post immediately below, I must give credit to Tom Davis for announcing his intent to vote for the pending resolution disapproving of Bush's plan. And while I'm sure this wasn't his intent, he managed to expose the wide, possibly politically fatal, rift in the GOP. He rushed to endorse the Iraq Study Group's report, the one Bush referred to as a "flaming turd." He even invoked the GOP leadership's boogeyman du jour, jihadism, but only in the context of the kind of anti-terrorism strategy, we should have adopted after 9/11 and in lieu of invading and occupying Iraq. Of course, Davis said that he voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq and still regards that as the right thing to do, but in criticizing the occupation and essentially calling for the type of redeployment favored by most voters, most Democrats and few Republicans, Davis has left Bush and his congressional cronies high and dry. All Davis has managed to do is make Virginia's far right hate him even more than they hate John Warner. Now it's more important than ever to send a signal to Davis by electing Chap Petersen to the VA Senate. If this is how Davis treats his own party, it would be the height of folly to continue to believe he'll treat us any better. He and his party foisted Bush on us and supported Bush all the way through last November at which point Bush became a lame duck. It's too little too late for Davis and his wife.
I don't know if Tom Davis used his five minutes yet to speak on the resolution pending on the floor of the House. (C-SPAN's website is maintaining an archive of all the Members' speeches, and as of earlier this morning they had only Rep. Wolf's.) It is important to know, however, that no matter how skeptical Davis feels courageous enough to appear in his floor speech and regardless of whether his leadership "allows" him to vote his "conscience" and support the resolution, the House Republican leadership's true position and strategy for the debate and vote have been leaked.
The Republicans think that if Bush's latest plan (surge, escalation, reinforcement, whatever) is addressed, positively or negatively, they will have lost the debate. They advocate that the subject be changed to the dangers of Islamic jihadism and the need to "succeed" over Islamic jihadism in Iraq. It's safe to assume if Davis uses this type of rhetoric in his floor speech, that he's heeding the urging of his leadership.
As Davis continues to follow the dictates of Bush rather than truly represent our beliefs, we need to continue to express our disapproval. It's abundantly clear now, even if it apparently wasn't a few months ago, that on the most important and prominent issue of the day, Davis will not stop yielding to Bush. We may be stuck with Davis and Bush until 2009, but, however muddled it may be, I implore you to send them a message this November.
I remain confident that Andy Hurst would have been a fine representative. I believe that my fellow voters would have agreed if only they didn't come around a little too late to the realization that a Democratic Congress can begin to undo Bush's mistakes and prevent future debacles. This November we can achieve a win-win by putting a fine politician, Chap Petersen, in the Virginia Senate and telling Tom Davis, via the defeat of his wife, that we've had enough.
I'm starting to think I'm too stupid to be a good blogger.
I understand the politics of Edwards hiring leftist bloggers and being criticized by the right. And I understand the politics if Edwards fires those bloggers in the face of the criticism. But I don't understand how a politician could actually use a good blogger, especially a major party candidate for President. The blogosphere is still too untamed and politically incorrect. If all this really is is a chance for armchair political staffers to join a campaign, then I don't see what the big deal is. One would expect a loose lipped blogger to toe the party line once hired by a politician. We expect politicians to lie. If bloggers, like more traditional staffers, including journalists (I'm talking to you Tony Snow), start going through the revolving door, it's their credibility that's at stake. I care less about whether Edwards retains his newly hired bloggers than whether those bloggers will be able to explain why they signed on in the first place, apart from the need to earn some money. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and Edwards will turn out to be a more amazing candidate than I think he is.
I also don't understand what the hell is going on in the Senate debate on the anti-Bush's-latest-"strategy" resolution. Perhaps the clubby atmosphere will prevail, but if Gates and Pace are willing to say that robust debate doesn't hurt the troops and that Bush's "strategy" is not the last chance for success, and if Warner and an increasing number of Republicans are willing to put down in writing that they essentially regret McConnell's filibuster (even if they technically are addressing Reid and McConnell), I don't understand why Reid and the Dems wouldn't pounce and get aggressive, especially since even with the additional five votes, they still don't have enough for cloture. I guess there are more shoes to drop (is this all about Libby's defense crumbling and the fickle finger of fate finally pointing at Cheney?).
