If Gilmore’s people are going to go after Marshall, they might want to get their facts right

So I’m checking my email before I begin my class, and I see the Jim Gilmore is not happy with some of the things Bob Marshall has said about him (and some of his prominent supporters).  So I figure it will make a nice post, but I have a class to teach.

So of course, by the time I come home, put the little guy to bed, run some errands, and finally get to my computer, it’s all over cyberspace.  The Washington Post has Marshall’s initial comments, Proud Republican at Virginia Virtucon reprints Gilmore’s press-release response (which garners its own response from fellow VV commentator Major Kong), and various sites chime in (BVBL wins top prize for post title – “Gilmore Runs to Momma”).

Weirdly enough, Spank That Donkey is quiet (as of 11:20 PM).  That can’t be good; when you most prolific, passionate, and humorous supporter on the blogosphere is sitting one out, you’re in deep trouble.  Then again, thanks to my schedule, the Gilmore people could have said the same thing!

Anyhow, amidst all the whirl and the rush, a couple of things have been lost – namely some facts that Gilmore’s people just got wrong.

Let’s start with the first set of errors: “To say that Jim Gilmore or the many prominent Republican leaders who support him have a “death wish” or are not pro-life is, at best, ill informed . . . “

For starters, Marshall’s exact words were as follows: “These guys have a political death wish for the party.”  Note the full term: political death wish.  Marshall wasn’t equating Gilmore backers to suicide bombers, rather he was questioning their political judgement.  Were his words strong?  Sure they were, but does Dick Leggitt (Gilmore’s campaign manager and the actual person quoted here) really think Mark Warner’s people will be nice?  As our presidential nominee is famous for saying, “Politics ain’t beanbag.”

As for “not pro-life,” Marshall only tagged that label on one person – Jim Gilmore.  Marshall had good reason for doing so; Jim Gilmore is not pro-life.

Lest we forget, Gilmore has an eight-week “choice” window, one large enough to kill over 600,000 to 700,000 children (or 50-60% of the estimated 1.2 million abortions performed in America every year; Marshall uses the higher number).

In fact, Marshall make the point clear in the part of his statement Leggitt doesn’t mention: “You’ve got basically the entire Republican establishment endorsing a candidate, Jim Gilmore, who wants to keep 60 percent of all abortions now being done legal (emphasis added)”.  Leggitt can’t get around that, so he’s left asking Marshall to “either come in out of the sun or put on a hat” – a snarky line that is far worse than aything Marshall used towards anyone in the Gilmore camp.

Oh, and there’s one more thing Leggitt got wrong - this nonsense: “Del. Marshall should . . . take a moment to remember the  alternative is electing Mark Warner to the U.S. Senate.”  No, Dick, the alternative is electing Bob Marshall to the U.S. Senate.

One more thing: Gilmore’s little missive mentioned abortion, national security, his campaign history, and a quick mention of other things - except the transportation debate in Richmond.  This fits a depressing pattern.