Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Playing the Blame Game

Our friends over at NoVA Squishes .... er, "Too Conservative," are busily playing the blame game, and guess who gets the blame? That's right! You guessed it! It's those nasty, principled Conservatives, who apparently didn't do the job for Kilgore.

Well, below is mostly what I posted in response, with a few changes. It helps to have actually looked at the numbers before you justify the outcome with your predetermined gripes.

Gee, let's see, Bolling got more votes in PWC than Kilgore. Frederick has apparently won. Marshall won in a relative walk. McQuigg won. McDonnell and Bolling BOTH won in Prince William County. How this translates into "people [in NoVA] didn't have any reason to go out and vote" is nonsense. GOP candidates who gave people a reason to go out and vote won. Kilgore didn't. It's pretty much that simple.

'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 -- and get (see Tom Davis) -- for so-called "moderate" candidates.

The fact is that most of 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 campaign's 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.

9 comments:

Hirons said...

Could not agree with you more on this post. Outside of the speculation of O.P. - unless he's a Anon -commentor I don't believe he's a contributor. Who knows could be wrong.

Good posting here and on TC comments.

too conservative said...

Jim and Scott

As I said on TC, I respect both of your opinions, but they are simply incorrect.

I went to thousands of doors in Republican precincts, called hundreds of voters, and spoke to hundreds at the polls yesterday.

Their problem was the ticket, that no one excited them.

This is not a blame game, but a simple fact. A Northern Virginian was needed to ensure a Kilgore victory.

Speculating otherwise is wrong.

James Young said...

Yes, and it just so happens that your analysis (giving Northern Virginians a reason to vote Republican required Chairman Sean) is coincident with your manic support for Chairman Sean. You're blinded by it.

There are plenty of "what if" analyses out there. Yours is no more valid than mine, and may even be less so. But I wonder what kind of "Republican" dismisses any but a pro-tax, pro-big government analysis?

Sure, I supported Kilgore. Never said a word against him. And while I'm loathe to kick a man when he's down (well, OK, some men), I have no particular disdain for or relationship (good or bad) with Kilgore.

I can't say I knocked on any doors. Waaaay too busy trying to stop forced dues for politics in the last five weeks to do so. But your analysis clearly reflects your prejudice.

too conservative said...

As I have said on TC, and other places...it is not necissarily JUST connaughton.

Jeannemarie, Hugo, heck even Cuccinelli I think would have helped the NOVA ticket.

The point Jim is-I respect your analysis, but it is not based on anything but your opinion, and Connaughton hating.

I knew this race in Faifax.

The average voter was displeased with our selection.

Also-As i stated on TC, i heard MANY democrats say yesterday they could not bring themselves to vote for Leslie Byrne.

I believe strongly that is Chap was the Dem nominee, we would have lost every single state-wide, and Albo and Frederick's seats.

Bollings "principles" had nothing to do with his win.

James Young said...

TC, I don't hate Chairman Sean; I hold him in contempt. There's a difference. The same can't be said of his sycophants, who quite clearly "hate" me, and anybody who tells the truth about his record.

He could even redeem himself, if he stopped gratuitously screwing Conservatives and stealing my money.

And why was the average voter "displeased with our selection"? Can you say, for sure, that it didn't have anything to do with the Connaughton campaign's demonization of Bolling in the primary? The sleazy tactic on Reciprocal, picked up by Chairman Ma... er, Leslie?

As for your comment that you "heard MANY democrats say .. they could not bring themselves to vote for Leslie Byrne," I suspect that there were just as many Republicans who would not have voted for Chairman Sean, had he won the GOP nomination.

As for your comment that "Bollings 'principles' had nothing to do with his win," I'm certainly willing to concede that Leslie's radicalism helped Bolling ... BECAUSE his principles differed. But the suggestion that his values had nothing to do with his victory is simply an effort to dismiss those values as important. How that is "too conservative," or "conservative" at all, is something of a mystery to me.

Anonymous said...

The idea that the vast majority of Virginian voters knew much more about Bolling than the letter next to his name and some vague impressions from him on TV is pretty foolish. He outspent his opponent, and she got terrible press for being ultra-liberal. No one outside of the political junkies knew what Bolling stood for, and drawing conclusions from his victory is plain silly.

MR JMS said...

A Bolling operativ was even waslking around on Tuesday evening saying, "had Chap or Puckett been in this race we'd be done right now"

As for conservatives. Kilgore gave little reason for them to support him. So, they stayed home in NoVa where that was especially true. We had a 30,000 vote swing from Bush's votes to Kilgore votes. In a lower turnout election that simply means our people stayed home.

Also- Bolling did win PWC, but not by much. I am a firm believer that we should NOT have lost PWC at all. And, Byrne with herl iberal agenda should not have done as well as she did.

Hirons said...

TC - I just don't get why you think Connaughton would have such a broader appeal to the entire ticket. Unless he had some ground breaking ideas on the job what additional appeal would have he brought. He's not well known to the general voting pop outside of PWC - not even enough to really have made a difference in FFX based on name rec. alone. I do think he would have added enough to avoid the Kilgore lost in PWC - but again - that's about it.

Perhaps the question of the week for him on Too Conservative should be why Kilgore lost PWC and the senior Republican elected official in in the county what did he do to turn out the Republican vote in PWC?

Pachyderm Princess said...

Before you go off on people who joined the committee and then disappeared ask yourself, "Where are all the Bruce Baxter supporters from that convention?" Did they even make it to the end of the convention?