No actually shaun I am not a pawn of my candidate... but I am sick of getting lectured about Jim Gilmore being responsible for an estimated 700,000 dead babies a year?
He has a position, hardly causing abortion to happen. Especially when his term as Gov. brought into law 24 Hr waiting periods for abortion.
How many lives has that actually saved vs. Marshall's rock solid position? Net Gilmore.
Partial Birth abortion ban... Net saved lives goes to Gilmore...
Going to the 6th District Mass Meeting and watching Marshall's surrogate go negative at Gilmore, while Donald Huffman himself (RPV Advance founder) told the crowd that Gilmore was the Governor that gave us a first time since Reconstruction a Republican Majority in the General Assembly.
Who's behind indeed! I'm just tired of Marshall's hubris... He's not making friends bashing Gilmore. Muchless making friends attacking LG Bolling and AG McDonnell when they endorse Gilmore.
Just because you're uncomfortable defending a pro-abortion, spend-and-spend Republican doesn't mean you have to take it out on the conservatives, Chris!
We will see who gets taken to school come nomination time. Grease up those lips Shaun because when Gilmore wins you will have a lot to eat with many bloggers serving up your crow. BTW- If your gonna preach about abortion and display a Embryonic stem cell killing John McCain banner...What a joke.
I think the MSFT earnings report has as much to do with the current price as the Yahoo attempt. Microsoft stock took a beating after the Yahoo announcement, started to recover (to over $32), and then they reported less than stellar earnings.
Yahoo, on the other hand, reported earnings that beat expectations. I don't know that it would be as high as it is with just those decent earnings, but it had been beaten down pretty good and was probably due for a bounce with some good news.
The point was to show that Gilmore's people have credibility problems when it comes to numbers.
Nobody's calling for Leggitt to get fired, or sued, or other somesuch.
The Marshall folks are simply asking delegates (some of whom might be swayed by this rally-around-the-almost-well-not-certain-but-trust-us-he-won-nominee stuff) to take this stuff with a grain of salt. That's all.
Shaun, I have to agree with d.j. mcquire. I also have to note that it appears to me that you are being disingenuous. You know about psychological games politicians play.
Everyone wants to win and to be on the winning side. Because they want to win, would Gilmore's team act like a winner and announce they are winning? Would they fudge the truth and cook the numbers?
Does Gilmore's team really know that they are in fact winning? Have they fudged the numbers in the past? Have we reason to believe that they would do so again? If the answers are yes, then Gilmore does have credibility issues. Even when the matter is a small one, that is most unfortunate.
Not knowing you, I have a real degree of hesitation to call into question anyone's reputation on a whim.
But all of this nonsense doesn't address the main point: namely that no matter what you might feel about the person in question, it doesn't change the actual vote totals one iota.
Focusing on this -- and taking our focus away from getting delegates to the convention -- is silly.
What does my reputation have to do with this matter? The facts we have discussed are all in your post.
Consider those facts. Why is there a story about Leggitt cooking polling data? Why your post? If it will not change the outcome, why claim to have victory all wrapped up?
Were people entirely sensible and honest, we would agree, but the fact is that people are neither entirely sensible or honest. That is one reason perception is sometimes more important than reality.
In this case, rather than vote for the best candidate, many people will vote for the person they think will win. If Gilmore's team succeeds in convincing enough people that he is the inevitable nominee, that perception will change the vote total.
There is, of course, a certain irony about all this. If fundraising is any indication, Mark Warner is having far more success convincing folks of the inevitability his election than Gilmore has had convincing folks of the inevitability of his nomination.
Sorry Tom! I'm not getting my message across correctly... Two things:
(1) I don't know ya. (2) Leggitt's reputation (not yours -- though I wouldn't call yours into question either) isn't a topic for debate and doesn't bring votes to the table.
I am supporting Marshall, BTW... he's a longtime ally, want to see him succeed, beat the snot out of Mark Warner, etc.
As such, we should be focusing on votes and nothing but votes at the convention. Diverting ourselves with someone else's foibles doesn't bring a single vote to the table IMO.
Shaun, I will be going to the convention, and like you, I will be voting for Bob Marshall. I suppose you, d.j. mcquire, and I, at least, are entirely sensible and honest. ;-)
Shaun Marshall is the one giving away the issue of increasing doemestic production of oil, and energy indedpendence from the Middle East.
Marshall has the same amount of experience on National Security as Warner..
NONE! Berating Gov. Gilmore because you don't agree with one of his positions is your preogative, but clearly trying to convince us that an unknown state wide Delegate, over a twice statewide elected former AG and Gov. is not giving advantage away to the Democrats?
That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it's not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government's consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.
A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 U.S. ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the U.S. pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government's xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view U.S. troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces. (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Even if the U.S. and its allies made clear that their actions were strictly for humanitarian purposes, it's unlikely the junta would believe them. "You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create?" says Egelend. "I can't imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food."
Wasn't Iraq ultimately coercive humanitarianism (sans NBC weapons)? If the liberation of Iraq was indeed moral and just, and I would argue it was, why not the liberation of Burma?
Of course, there are a few reason to the contrary. Iraq was playing footsie with a 1991 cease-fire agreement, Iraq destabilized a large portion of the Middle East, Iraq was actively supporting terrorism, Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant guilty of murdering hundreds of thousands of people, Iraq refused to come clean on it's WMD program, etc.
Then there's the flip side of the coin: Coercive humanitarian aid involving unfriendly natives doesn't exactly create the best environment. If the goal is not regime change, then the source of the unrest will continue unchecked and unabated. Images of dropping tons of food from C130s on suspecting Kurds comes to mind... then there's the whole "no blood for (fill in the blank)" crowd.
The Iraq/Burma parallel is interesting to draw. Thankfully, it's done in an article that doesn't mention Iraq once... so I'm free to draw my own conclusions, rather than have them imposed.
Hence the reasons why political types and people who jump in front of the train (petitions and such) seem to catch the wave. It's not just building the storefront either... Obama spent nearly $800,000 priming the pump with online banner ads while using both earned media and an aggressive e-mail strategy (76 e-mails in 28 days???) to committed activists, only to watch his e-mail subscribers drop off the map dramatically.
Obviously there's great potential online, but how do you reach those online donors without burning out your base? For smaller campaigns, this will continue to be a problem, whereas smaller organizations with brand names to protect will not be able to counter burnout with positive earned media.
Campaigns will have to find a way to take care of their e-mail subscribers by using information, inside baseball, and opportunities for activism. Organizations willing to use online fundraising may find out that in the end... campaigns or single initiatives will be the trick to riding the online fundraising wave.
Burnout seems to be the watchword. Moments of brilliance seem to be the key to the "money bomb"; more tactics than strategy.
I know some Virtucon contributors support Marshall while others support Gilmore and yet others won’t support Marshall even if he is the nominee. I respect and understand everyone’s reasons. Do I agree with Bob 100 percent on things? No. But my compelling reason isn’t taxes or social issues. Rather, it is Marshall is simply a great candidate on transportation issues. He doesn’t advocate paving Maryland as I would, but he does support connecting I-95 through DC right up to College Park, something I have long advocated.
Riley joins the other veterans of the Virginia rightosphere over at Bloggers 4 Marshall.
Obama is posting a lead, but truth be told, if the DNC actually seats the Florida and Michigan delegates who voted for Hillary, there is only a 30 delegate difference between the two candidates: 1920 to Obama and 1890 to Hillary.
Since this is the case, with myDD is reporting 55 superdelegates as "uncommitted" and 518 delegates still left up for grabs, one small legal challenge could up-end the entire apple cart.
It would appear as if Hillary's path to victory is still very much alive, despite how the press and the Obama camp are spinning the current state of affairs. Worse news? Polls seems to indicated that McCain edges out Obama in a head to head contest, but Hillary edges McCain...
"It will take someone like [Marshall] to excite the Republican base, which he will do not just on the firearms issue," according to Macy. "At the moment, Republican voters are disillusioned because they do not see politicians taking their issues seriously."
Curiously, this is being done by a Gilmore camp convinced (or trying to convince others) it has the nomination wrapped up. You only go negative when you're losing folks...
"When we think of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principles of justice, the laws of religion, and of God?" -- William Wilberforce
Awesome. And just in time to stand up for rock-solid conservative judges (you can sign the petition here).
Frankly, the speech McCain gave on human liberty reads to be one heck of a speech. Some excerpts:
Last year the world celebrated the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the British and American slave trade in 1807. Nearly fifty-six years would pass before Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, signaling the end of slavery in the United States. But the achievement of both countries in terminating the international slave trade and setting into motion the titanic and bloody struggle to close a shameful chapter in the history of our country should be remembered as a turning point in mankind's long and fitful progress toward a more just world. William Wilberforce had struggled for years in the British parliament to strike the lethal blow against the abominable institution that had scarred Western civilization for centuries. He was a humble Christian man, powerfully motivated by his faith, whose example instructs every person born in freedom that we have a moral obligation not to turn a blind eye to assaults on the collective dignity of humanity wherever they occur.
...
Confronting evil has never been easy – in our age or any other. But the failure to do so affects even those who are complacent with our own blessings and secure in our human rights.
...
We can retain our own freedom when others are robbed of theirs, but not the sense of virtue that made our revolution a moral as well as political crusade, and which recognizes that personal happiness is so much more than pleasure, and requires us to serve causes greater than self-interest.
...
There is another form of human oppression that persists in the world today that demands our urgent attention and should sting the conscience of every good person. Inexcusably, it is a crime that, while prevalent elsewhere, exists within our own borders as well. Human trafficking – slavery, by another name – exists not just in places like Thailand, Kuwait and Venezuela. It is a serious problem here in the United States.... As President, I'll increase cooperation and communication between all agencies of the federal government by establishing an Inter-Agency Task Force on Human Trafficking, whose purpose will be to focus exclusively on the prosecution of human traffickers and the rescue of their victims.
...
We must also do more to ensure governments that tolerate human trafficking crack down on this modern form of slavery. We can support efforts to change the economic incentives and do more to aid the victims. But we must view this evil form of twenty-first century slavery every bit as important as drug trafficking. All too often the same criminal networks that trade in fourteen-year-old girls also trade in narcotics--and even in materials that can be used by terrorists. Identifying and destroying criminal networks that evade national boundaries is also a matter of our national security.
...
Our nation, whose founders sacrificed for the belief that we would be an example to the world, has long appreciated that our freedom confers responsibilities on us all, and among them, is our respect for the freedom of others. Ours is not a perfect history. But it is a history distinguished by our pursuit of this ideal.
...
Ours is a nation with a conscience, and thank God we are. As William Wilberforce said so many years ago, "When we think of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principles of justice, the laws of religion, and of God?"
What a great speech. Whomever McCain's speechwriter is deserves a gold star (or at the very least, a raise).
In our third year, we traveled the Commonwealth, holding an honest discussion with Virginians about what they expected from state government. In the end, Republicans and Democrats came together and we fixed the budget mess.
In our third year, when Chichester and Potts asked for the moon; I fell down on my knees and thanked God for my good fortune. I went around the state promising I’d only raise taxes half as much as those clowns, and the rest is history.
We brought more fairness to our tax system.
We told those fools in Northern Virginia that if they paid even more through the nose, that we would use the money to fix roads - and they fell for it.
We saved our Triple-A bond rating.
Wall Street told me to cut spending or raise taxes. See above.
Beautiful. I sure do hope we can see more installments in upcoming Mark Warner speeches... because this clears up everything.
The first oddity came when she asked if I needed a ride and a place to stay. I said no but I was really intriqued with who would be willing to pay for my gas and put me up at their house. Huh, I was dying to find out who was doing this so as she was wrapping up the call I asked. No answer. I asked again. Again no answer. She had disconnected or hung up. I have no way of knowing if she heard me ask her to state who was paying for the call. The call clearly was in violation of state election law.
I was guessing that the Gilmore campaign was sponsoring the calls since he has more money that others up for election at the convention. However I don't know for sure of course. If you talk to someone in the campaign you could mention they need to fix their "survey".
Guess that convention for Gilmore isn't so neatly wrapped up as some might think, eh?
UPDATE: Team Gilmore says it's not their script... it's not Marshall's script, and it's not John Hager's script. Which leaves one candidate for office at the State Convention left...
I'll say this once, and then I'll never repeat it.
I agree with Barack Obama on virtually nothing. I have strong disagreements with John McCain on social issues. But for the first time in a long time, I can truly say that whomever wins will be a president with whom I may disagree with on policy, but I could truly say I'd be proud to be represented by them. Finally, two thinking individuals running for president... when is the last time we had this in America?
Having said that, Obama is a socialist hippie commie pinko. (whew, I feel better)
Kents Store sits along Route 76 -- the Trans-America Trail -- a bike trail that starts in Yorktown and ends in Astoria, Oregon.
Every once in awhile, we'll get bikers coming down the road heading towards Monticello who will stop at the store and visit, swap stories, and of course buy something to eat before heading down the road or camping out for the night.
Monday, our visitor was Jerry Lisenby, a gentleman some might recall from the TV show "The Biggest Loser". The Lisenby's needed to stay overnight, so we let them camp out in the yard and fed them breakfast before they went on their way. Heard some great stories about their time in the Peace Corps, Paraguay, and some other great experiences.
Along the way, Jerry and Lynne are promoting the Children's Home of Illinois, a charity back in their hometown of Peoria. Feel free to check out the website -- he tracks everywhere he's been with small notes about where he was -- blog and everything. Great site!
On Jan 31, the day before Microsoft offered $31/share for Yahoo, YHOO was at $19.18/share (market cap: $26.4 billion) and MSFT was at $32.60/share (market cap: $303.6 billion). At the close of trading today, YHOO closed at $24.37/share (market cap: $33.5 billion) and MSFT was at $29.08/share (market cap: $270.8 billion). In other words, the Microsoft offer increased the value of Yahoo! Inc. by more than $7 billion and decreased the value of Microsoft Corporation by almost $33 billion. In still other words, in attempting to take Yahoo by force, they let an amount equal to Yahoo slip through their fingers. Why isn't anyone writing about Yahoo's amazing stock gains and Microsoft's plunge?"
About a month ago, Radar (the family outside cat we adopted) looked a bit pregnant. Sure enough, Radar disappeared for a week, and came back less pregnant.
For about three weeks I've been picking on the cat. "Hey Radar, where's your babies?!?!" to the incessant mewing of a hungry cat.
This afternoon, we found one very black kitten in the garage, whom I pulled out of some junk and set her in a small box (where we placed Bucky last year). Sure enough, this evening I go to turn out lights and there is another kitten... a grey-and-white striped kitten who is mean as hell.
Caroline got to choose names. For the black kitten, she originally chose Aurora (we've been watching Sleeping Beauty), but since that doesn't fit both boy-and-girl names they settled on Spike.
Now we're going back. Aurora is the black kitten (she's nice) and Spike is going to be the striped kitten. Because Spike is mean as hell.
At this rate, I was hoping that Radar's track record of one kitten a year would continue. Now that the theory is disproven, we're going to have to spay and neuter these guys. On a lighter note, it looks as if my mouse/mole/vole problem will be fixed in the coming year. I'll take the trade.
Others have another name for the new efforts by black bloggers: Civil Rights 2.0. Blogger L.N. Rock said that if abolitionist Frederick Douglass, former congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr., civil rights organizer Bayard Rustin and "people like that were around today, they would have blogs."
"The NAACP's youth-outreach efforts are dysfunctional," Rock said. "We would have been glad to work with them had they asked. If you're talking about the talented tenth, we are the new talented tenth," a reference to a concept by Du Bois of a group of exceptional black men.
"The skill sets of the bloggers is no joke," Rock said. "These guys have doctorates. They're not being used."
But overtaking traditional civil rights groups, which have built their reputations over time, will take more than words, computer savvy and bravado. The NAACP alone has more than 300,000 members who pay dues and an additional 325,000 who have signed up online, the group's spokesman said. ColorOfChange.org has about 400,000 online members, Jones said.
Congratulations goes out to Marie Quinn, Kurt Michael (confirmed at Augusta GOP Chairman), Fred Anderson, and newly-minted 2nd District Chairman Gary Byler. Many of these victories on the right were above the endorsements of elected officials.
Here's the catch: Progressives are still being judged about their methods (for an example: Jim Webb in 2006) as they took over the Democratic Party from the liberal establishment. As conservatives re-establish their party (not take back -- because there's very little to reclaim), the manner of which we accomplish this will be just as important as the deed itself.
Remember last week when former Gov. Jim Gilmore's campaign released internal canvassing numbers to suggest that Gilmore had wrapped up the Republican nomination to run for U.S. Senate.
At the time, the spokesman for Republican hopeful Bob Marshall called the claim "baloney," because delegates for the convention are still being elected.
On Thursday, Marshall's campaign got a little more personal, pointing on some of the history of Gilmore's political guru Dick Leggitt. Marhsall's team is pulling Leggitt's history and noting that he feed cooked polling data to reporters in Colorado in 2006.
That campaign was the Marc Holtzman campaign, one marked as a particularly vicious campaign against the eventual nominee, Congressman Bob Beauprez. You can read the details here. As a result of a poorly run campaign, some of the strangest ads I've ever seen run, and the bruising primary, Beauprez lost his gubernatorial bid to Democrat Bill Ritter by a 10pt. margin.
The conservative Rocky Mountain News back in May 2006 was particularly harsh, but focused more on whether someone should be sued for presenting false poll numbers (which was the rallying cry immediately after Leggitt came clean on the numbers as "spin"):
If Holtzman wants to employ someone who lies to the press in such brazen fashion, that's his business. Journalists will adjust their reports depending on whether they feel they can trust anything he now says. For some, the answer will be no.
But as for there being an obligation to fire Leggitt, that's nonsense. The Colorado law is - or at least should be - unconstitutional. You can't outlaw false campaign rhetoric, intentional or not. Indeed, we can hardly think of anything more destructive to free speech than inviting courts to rule on political truthfulness and honesty.
A little perspective is needed: No one is going to court in Virginia over delegate counts.
Yes. folks are going to dump on Dick Leggitt for awhile for previous missteps. That's stupid, because the best way to make sure you do have the horses is to bring them yourself. That's bring them, not count them on some spreadsheet in some vacated box store.
Personally, there's the nagging doubt that Leggitt might have the goods. How do I know? Because Leggitt isn't doing the delegate count for Gilmore -- Matt Wells is. Second, after getting caught in the Holtzman debacle, few good political hacks are willing to make the same mistake twice. Lastly... Dick Leggitt is a good guy who wants his guy to win. That's not a crime... loyalty to a fault, perhaps... but not a crime.
If Gilmore is off in the delegate count, it's because they are being misinformed by troops on the ground. Having worked with Matt before... well... he thought it was close, he'd be more worried. Then there's that small thing about delegates not wanting to be on the wrong side, so they tell both sides "of course I'm supporting ____________!!!!"
Psychology at it's best.
Marshall's team isn't wrong to bring up the past, but let's keep in mind one thing: Total number of delegates this adds to the actual tally? ZERO.
Get back to work!
(In the interests of full disclosure, I was in Colorado as campaign manager for the CO-04 race, starting in about a month after the Beauprez-Holtzman race had settled out... not only did I not have a dog in that race, I only had to deal with the aftermath in my corner of Northern and Eastern Colorado.)
I think I'd rather ask Ron's opinion... but I'm not one to leave folks in the lurch, because there's a right and a wrong way to do video (online or otherwise). So I'll advise.
For tips on how to properly do a YouTube video between a candidate and a consumer, read this:
Ever do a truly crappy job at something you cared about? That was me a month ago when I put together my first YouTube video. I did it - God forgive me for my sins - because the organizer of the Business of Software Conference in a fit of Pure Evil decided the only way for speakers to get on was to do a vote for me video.
...
After a month of sleepless nights and depressed days agonizing over what to do in this Brave New Video World, a strange golden light surrounded me early yesterday morning and an amazing calm filled me. A godlike voice said in my head, “This is television dummy! There’s always a take 2!”
Gilmore desperately needs a Take 2.
Of course, if you want to see one done right... well, you know where to look:
Now seriously, if you saw only these two videos, which would you vote for?
Lest this be confused for more shilling by yours truly for Marshall over Gilmore, check out Marshall's YouTube videos... and you will see nothing of the sort of one-on-one conversation (which I would strongly advise Marshall do).
Altogether, it does raise one question: If Gilmore truly intends to present the RPV Convention as a mere coronation rather than the contest it is shaping up to be, shouldn't the rank-and-file be able to point to at least one field where we are trouncing Mark Warner and the Democrats? Fundraising? Grassroots? Organization? Voter contact? Red-hot issues? Online media? Or God forbid -- real, solid pro-life, pro-limited government, pro-family, and pro-2nd Amendment issues that speak to our base????
Are we seriously being asked to count on McCain's coattails to soothe Gilmore's high negatives and carry the GOP to victory? I would much rather have the heads up contest of ideas Marshall will give us against Warner... without the baggage Gilmore brings to the table.
Perhaps I'm just hungry and sleepy (and therefore, grouchy). Therefore, I'm going to go back to mowing my lawn now... or maybe I'll be going fishing.
One of the two.
UPDATE: This is not the first time Gilmore has been offered feedback... once upon a time, a similar criticism for Gilmore's video announcing his 2008 presidential bid was issued from James Kotecki (of Politico fame)...
...and that was for Gilmore's abortive presidential run. Ouch.
ShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's
oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public
life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.
Spank That Donkey 
