Earlier tonight (OK, last night, as we’re now past midnight here), I detailed my troubles (and what I believe are the troubles of most Republicans) with the current crop of presidential candidates. I ended that post as such:
In short, the typical Republican voter will need something extra to be encouraged to vote – and volunteer – for the Republican ticket. I’ll explain why I think that, and how it impacts Virginia, in later posts.
Well, it’s only going to be one post, but here’s why I think “something extra” is required – and by “something extra,” I mean a better candidate down-ballot: asking Republicans to play defense with their vote doesn’t work.
We tend to forget this lesson, and are thus doomed to relearn it, repeatedly. Remember 1996, when we were told legions of anti-Clinton voters would put Bob Dole in the White House? Dole won 41% of the vote. Two years later, we heard the same nonsense about voters angry at the Lewinksy scandal. It turned out Republicans were angrier about the party’s weakness on spending issues, and Clinton became the first Democratic president not to lose seats in a mid-term election since 1934. In 2000, the same logic got the GOP 48% of the vote and a cliff-hanger of an election. Only when Republicans could vote for something (as in 2002 and 2004) did the party regain its footing (only to lose it again by going back on defense in 2005).
We saw the same thing here in Virginia. In 2005, we were all supposed to fall in line behind Jerry Kilgore to stop Tim Kaine. Kaine beat Kilgore by 6 points. Two years later, the sam defensive mentality led to the transportation tax hike of 2007 and the loss of our State Senate majority,
Today, every single Republican candidate (save Paul, whose prospects for victory are minuscule) are hoping to use the anti-Clinton wave to win the White House. The fact that no such wave existed in 1996, 1998, or even 2000 has not deterred them.
The fact remains, however, that Republicans only win when their voters are motivated to vote for their candidates, not merely against their opponents.
This is where our Senate race comes in.
Virginia will be a competitive state this year. The Democrats will be energized by their nominee (either the first women or the first African-American to be nominated by a major party for president). We will need similar energy on our side.
Only one candidate can produce that energy: Bob Marshall.
For anti-tax, limited government voters, Bob Marshall offers a 16-year record of fighting tax increases and government spending, to the point of currently suing to eliminate the unconstitutional regional taxes in HB3202. Jim Gilmore presents an incomplete record on car-tax reduction, a spending increase that was higher in percentage termsthan Mark Warner’s, and absolute silence on HB3202. If this were 1998, Gilmore may still have been able to motivate and inspire limited government Republicans to walk through walls for him. However, it is 2008, and the only candidate who can do that is Marshall.
For pro-life voters, Marshall is the ideal. He is unabashedly pro-life, without exception. Gilmore, by contrast, has an eight-week “choice” window. Pro-life voters may support Gilmore in November, but they won’t move heaven and earth to get him elected; only Marshall can inspire them to do that.
For national security voters, the difference is glaring. Jim Gilmore still hasn’t disavowed his June 2007 op-ed when he came out against the surge. Marshall has done no such thing. The folks at National Review have already noticed this from Gilmore, and have refused to support him as a result. Again, Gilmore will have far more trouble with the “base” on this than Marshall.
Conventional wisdom holds that the Republican perceived as more “moderate” has the better shot at winning the election. I greatly dispute this in every election However, in this election, the CW loses all validity. Nothing we do can keep the Democrats at home on election day, but we can keep angry right-wingers at home by nominating the wrong candidate. Those who think Mark Warner or Hillary Clinton will “scare” them into voting must not forget that such tactics did not work against Bill Clinton or Tim Kaine.
The Republicans need to vote for a candidate, rather than against the Democrat. If they don’t have that at the presidential level, it is imperative that they have it at the Senatorial level. Marshall’s nomination will not only make the Senate seat more winnable, it may be the only way we can assure t Virginia’s electoral votes go to the Republican ticket.
Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 Bob Marshall
January 27, 2008 at 12:10 pm |
I thought when I say this headline I was going to disagree loudly with this post, but your arguments make a lot of sense. I still think Gilmore will explain himself to at least my satisfaction on some of these views, but maybe he won’t.
January 27, 2008 at 12:54 pm |
DJ:
It’s hard to have a conversation with someone when the other person bases his positions on ‘untruths’, even when shown evidence, like three times now? This just shows how weak your argument is by hoping to create an ‘urban myth’ about Gov. Gilmore’s record on National Defense, and spending, to include the car tax.
Just for anyone new to this argument, I present Gov. Gilmore’s own words in his WaPo editorial:
“As you know from my public statements, I have supported your increase in troops in Iraq in the belief that a new initiative was necessary to bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion. ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700943.html
Let the record show DJ, links his documentation to his own post saying that Gov. Gilmore is against the surge, and not to the actual Gilmore OP-Ed piece where his first sentence endorses the ‘Surge’.
On to DJ’s next attempt at myth creation:
“Jim Gilmore presents an incomplete record on car-tax reduction, a spending increase that was higher in percentage termsthan Mark Warner’s, and absolute silence on HB3202.”
DJ: When you pay your reduced car tax bill this year, oh, I mean “incomplete record” reduced car tax bill, thank Del. Bob Marshall. Shouldn’t he be to blame that as this “Champion” of the Right hasn’t dragged the General Assembly kicking and screaming to eliminate the Car Tax since Gov. Gilmore left office?
Gov. Gilmore has the best record of modern history VA Gov.s on Taxes and Spending, with the only exception of Gov. Allen. In your desperate attempts to somehow deny this fact you overlook that Gov. Gilmore is still the author of the largest Tax Reduction in the history of VA, and it continues to this day, by utilizing excess State Income tax revenues to reimburse localites for you and I’s car taxes.
You also hate the idea of using the same excess revenues to roll back VA state supported College tuiton 20% and freezing it for four years, even when this helped lessen the high cost of health care by lowering those doctors and dentists mountains of student loans coming out of MCV and UVA.
This is really just coming down to your abuse of the facts just to advance a state wide unknown candidate who has a ‘pure’ position on Pro-Life issues. For all of Delegate Marshall’s ‘Grand Standing’ on the issue; has he, as a two time, State Wide, swept NOVA Twice, Attorney General or Governor made these advances coming in the following paragraphs for the Pro-Life movenment?
During his Administration was a ‘24 hour waiting period’ for abortions, or a Partial Birth Abortion ban signed into law in VA? No, What about completing Gov. Allen’s work on ‘Parental Notification’ before an abortion for minors in the Commonwealth? No? Del Marshall wasn’t the guy who beat two time LG Don Beyer, the Gov. Mark Warner of his day, to make sure that those important PRO-LIFE, acts were signed into law?
Did (Gov). Del. Marshall ban human cloning in VA? No again?
As far as your ‘offense-defense’ Republican history lesson of above goes, you forget to point out that Gov. Gilmore is the top voting getting Republican among Virginians with African Heritage which will be a crucial factor with either Hillary or Obama running. If you think for one minute that an unknown Del Marshall is going to make in roads among those voters you are sadly mistaken. Those voters are not interested in words, but deeds.
We are going to be faced with another very, very tight Senate Race and if you didn’t notice Gov. Allen lost by 12,000 or so votes, and we need the best candidate that can bring every Virginian into the Republican column we can get. This is no time to be attacking a solidly Conservative Republican candidate such as Gov. Gilmore when we are faced with losing another Senate Seat to the Democrats.
Especially one that has advanced the Pro-Life Agenda in VA with actual accomplishments, and not just having the ‘purest’ postion on the issue. Your efforts to distort Gov. Gilmore’s record only helps Gov. Warner’s ability to get elected and roll back the Pro-Life movement on the national level.
If Del Marshall were to defeat Gov. Gilmore and get the VA Republican Nomination for US Senate; it would be a Pyrrhic Victory indeed for the Pro Life Movement.
January 27, 2008 at 8:55 pm |
I think Gilmore’s last line from that op-ed is more enlightening:
“American interests come down to protection of our national security, protection of Israel’s right to exist, and averting, if possible, a general war in the Middle East, nuclear or otherwise. Our present conduct in Iraq distracts from or is detrimental to those goals.”
Clearly he supported the surge before June 18, 2007, but was not supporting it on June 18. You can’t airbrush that quote out of history – as much as you’d like to try.
As for Gilmore’s spending record, it is what it is. You can’t ignore it; and the higher education spending isn’t limited government just because you like it.
Finally, on abortion, Gilmore has made a number of accomplishments, but that doesn’t make him pro-life – and that means the community won’t be motivated like it will for Marshall. That makes Gilmore less electable, in my view, as I’ve said before.
January 28, 2008 at 10:41 am |
So you have the credibility of the WaPo DJ? Well, it’s not so much what he said about the surge, it’s about what I can possibly construe from the rest of what he said?
The point is not to be explained later, the point is you told an untruth in hopes of perpetuating it into an ‘urban myth’ among Conservatives. Why?
Is it because Gov. Gilmore is a veteran, with an Army Intelligence background, chaired a national anti-terrorism commission before 9-11, enacted into VA Law the chain of command of how to respond to a terrorist attack prior to 9-11?
Maybe that is why you need to distort in the worst kind of way by telling untruths about a fellow Conservative?
January 28, 2008 at 10:50 am |
STD, they weren’t the WaPo’s words, they were his words.
I created no ‘urban myth.’ It is abundantly clear in the column Gilmore wrote that he was ending his prior support for the surge. The opening line you quote merely reiterates his pre-6/18/07 support, it does not extend to 6/18 and beyond. In fact, it cannot do so when he writes: “But I also believe we cannot continue our present policy” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700943.html).
I put no words in his mouth.
January 28, 2008 at 12:59 pm |
[...] Iraq policy last year, when it clearly was anything but. STD goes into detail in the comments here, but he’s not the first person who’s tried this, so I thought a post would be required [...]