home

Deeds Doomed? Pointing Fingers Before Election Day

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:49:18 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I have not paid much attention to the VA governor's race because I found Creigh Deeds to be about as lousy a candidate as I had seen. It was with some amusement that I watched "progressive" blogs celebrating the center right Deed's "great" win in the primary. In any event, we now see that Deeds has pretty much thrown in the towel and started the fingerpointing. Not surprisingly, he is pointing at "liberals":

Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Creigh Deeds said in an interview that he was lagging in the polls entering the final weeks of the campaign in part because of voter concerns over his national party’s agenda. “Frankly, a lot of what’s going on in Washington has made it very tough [. . .] We had a very tough August because people were just uncomfortable with the spending; they were uncomfortable with a lot of what was going on, a lot of the noise that was coming out of Washington, D.C.”

Ha! Deeds stinks and it is the "liberals'" fault. Hilarious. He's toast in case you are wondering.

Speaking for me only

< The Unhappy Dem Base | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Deeds Doomed? Pointing Fingers Before Election Day | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Like the liberals have been (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    setting the party's agenda....

    Riiiight.

    Tell that to Rahm.

    More like the Liebermans have been setting the agenda - do nothing but b*tchslap the base.

    Anyone who's surprised by this turn of events hasn't been watching.

    The curious part of the coming debacle is this (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    Democratic losses at the polls actually help the Blue Dogs, the Rahms, and the DINO-Republicans in the Democratic party.

    1.  Losses get the Democratic base activated to get rid of the Republicans, when the Republicans start implementing their (base's) agenda.
    2.  Losses which do not result in Dems losing control do result in narrower margins, which makes the wavering of a single Blue Dog all the more important, all the more needing of solicitude (in pork and legislative favors to the corporatist agenda) and gives the Blue Dogs greater power.  
    3.  When Blue Dogs and Rahm control the agenda - as they currently do - they can choose to deliberately dis-spirit the Dem base be showing themselves to be Republican-Lite, i.e., being true to themselves.  This directly results in Dem losses (regardless of the quality of the candidate).
    4.  When Dems lose, they can always blame their liberal base for not showing out, creating a justification for moving the party further to the right/corporatist side.

    I could go on, but this coming failure is not a bug, it is a feature.

    I suppose the only way to end this one-way ratchet is to primary Rahm's friends and replace them with Real Democrats.  Like is happening with Specter (Sestak is marginally more of a Dem but, as his ad notes:  "If Specter wins the primary, there will be 2 Republicans running for Senate in Pennsylvania") and appears to be coming in Vermont with a primary challenge - from the left - against Leahy.

    As it stands now, my mindset about Obama is that "if I wanted a Republican, I would have voted for McCain.  I didn't want one, but I still got one."

    That sh*t has got to cease.  

    Parent

    A primary challenge in VT (none / 0) (#35)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:01:06 PM EST
    against Leahy?  Great! Don't stop there: Dodd should go, Schummer, Byrd, Baucus, Conrad, and a few others who are either too old now or too conservative in their longevity to help the Democratic rank and file.

    Parent
    While you ponder the thought of (none / 0) (#40)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    a primary challenge from Leahy's left, go watch this site that Sestak put up.
    Old Arlen Specter campaign ads.  One after another.  Endorsements from Bush, Cheney, Santorum....

    Parent
    The Democratic Senatorial campaign (none / 0) (#41)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:39:06 PM EST
    asked for money.  I said "sure" so I sent them $50 addressed to Joe Sestak. No more money for the party.  But I will send to specific Dems that I think will be improvements. I want Specter gone.  He is so bad, but actually there are a lot like him. Seeing a picture of these really old white men who dominate the Senate is pretty telling. (I am not a spring chick either, but I see the symbolism). They have become too comfortable with their positions and their own little club.  I think some reasonable term limits would work. Two 8 or 10 year terms for Senators. The congress could also be cut back. I say three 5 year terms and then out.  That would give them plenty of time to orient and yet not so much time that they fossilized.

    Parent
    On the presidential level (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    Democrats are basically Rockefeller Republicans and have been since Carter, I mean there's a reason that Alan Greenspan called Clinton "the best Republican President we ever had" , that said at the Congressional level we can definitely push the Overton window to the left (which in turn would push the President to the left), we just have to pick and choose our shots- can we get more liberal in say Arkansas- probably not, but can we get more liberal in CT than Lieberman, or Schumer in New York (at least I think we can)- yeah definitely, the same with Specter in PA (though this one may be debatable- Casey might be more conservative than Specter- at least socially), the Senators who really need to be pushed are Boxer and Feinsteinne- seriously, its California and the best we can do is a Center-Right Senator on the one hand, and a spokeswoman for the Defense Industry on the other?  

    Parent
    See how the attempt to get Liberman out (none / 0) (#42)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    worked!  There is a guy in Delaware named Tom Carper who is more blue Dog than Barbara Boxer. Sheesh!

    Parent
    eh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by alex1 on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:09:02 AM EST
    Deeds I've never been fond of, but I don't see him "blaming" liberals. He does seem to blame the national party however, and I would agree that the national Democratic party has been tepid at best.

    What I find amazing is how off topic he is. At least finish off the campaign before going into the postmortem.

    I might have missed it, but I don't see him (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:09:23 AM EST
    mention liberals. And I've seen many, many liberals say they are uncomfortable with the spending (money to banks) out of Washington.

    Yeah right (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:31:04 AM EST
    He was talking about TARP in August.

    You are resembling an ObamaBot on this one.

    Parent

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#22)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    I live in this region and I sort of think that Deeds is on the losing end of both the liberal and conservative worlds in VA.  Up here in the Northern part, people are more and more discouraged - I think his base turn out is going to end up being low.  Independents are likely to be completely disenchanted with the Dems at this point - and I am guessing that the rather rabid right wing in the Commonweath is far more energized now after their tea parties and stuff.

    Not that I think he's a great candidate or whatever...  I just don't see the political environment stacking up in his favor at the moment.  He really needs the NoVa Dems to turn out and I just don't think that folks are feeling good about how things are going with the Dems who are in power - and I'd argue that that has as much or more to do with the likes of Baucus and the Blue Dogs.  That's just my take from talking to people around town.

    Parent

    I'm in Northern Virginia too (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 07:50:27 PM EST
    And the only people I've heard mention the election were a couple of co-workers who live in Maryland. And the only thing they mentioned was a couple of months ago when McDonnell's stupid Master's thesis was released (where, according to WaPo, he "described working women and feminists as "detrimental" to the family. He said government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators." He described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.")

    I've seen lots of election commercials - well, strike that, I've fast forwarded through lots of commercials - but, my guess is, voter turnout will be especially low here in NoVa. Especially as Deeds has constantly run away from Obama "coattails".

    Parent

    Unintended irony (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by HenryFTP on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    [H]e was lagging in the polls entering the final weeks of the campaign in part because of voter concerns over his national party's agenda.

    The Democratic National Chairman is Governor Tim Kaine, of Virginia. He of course was handpicked by Obama for the job.

    It takes a really great candidate to manage to squander the steady progress Democrats have made in Virginia over the past several years, culminating in a victory in the Presidential election for the first time since 1964 -- particularly as his Republican opponent rivals

    Macaca
    Allen in odiousness.

    Well, Bob McDonnell is a disaster (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    but VA Dems didn't do themselves any favors this year.

    Did they really have a better candidate? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:06:43 PM EST
    The primary was not even close.  If Deeds is such an awful candidate and one of his rivals would have been better, hard to see how he would have smoked everyone so decisively in the primary.  Did he just recently become a bad candidate?

    Parent
    No, as far as I can tell they didn't (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    and actually that's what I meant. Probably I would have gone for T-Mac, but I doubt if it would have made a difference.

    Parent
    Most leftists will be staying home (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    in the next few cycles most likely. And that's enough to hand some seats back to the GOP.

    It's not like the Dems are enacting anything that looks leftist right now.

    Doesn't matter (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 01:14:51 PM EST
    The Dems will decide that the reason they lost was because they were not quite Republican, I mean centrist, enough and the village will be more than willing to reinforce that opinion.  

    Parent
    Both parties make odd choices (none / 0) (#34)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:39:01 PM EST
    After all the consensus on the right is that the reason McCain lost is twofold:

    1. He wasn't conservative enough (these are the types who think Sarah Palin would have won on her own- and can't seem to see the contradictions between the three main factions of the GOP)

    2. Fraud- McCain really won, and possibly won big- after all this is a conservative nation, Minority turnout only spiked due to fraud, and the cities should never be able to outvote real America(read: Rural, White, and Christian) these are the types that think ACORN changed history despite being a reasonably small and poorly funded organization.


    Parent
    Cite the "progressive blogs" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by cotton candy on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    that you speak of who were "celebrating" Creigh Deeds win. IIRC there were progressive blogs that were behind Moran and those that were in the anyone but Macauliffe camp.  

    You can gloat but to gloat based on some creation of "progressive blogs" only makes you look foolish. Of course it would just be par for the course.

    As a VA resident (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by BDB on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 01:36:46 AM EST
    what seemed to happen was that many of the "progressives" backed Bryan Moran (Jim Moran's brother) in an attempt to stop Terry Mac.  The two split much of the Northern Virginia vote and Deeds got the nomination.

    McDonnell is truly awful.  But to be honest, I'm torn about whether to bother voting.  I'd count myself as part of the Democrats' unmotivated base.  I sucked it up in November and voted for Obama and all it has gotten me is preventive detention, more bank bailouts, Bush's Iraq timeline, more claims of executive authority and secrecy, an inadequate and unfocused stimulus, and a sham healthcare reform effort that not only puts industry first but rushed to throw women once again under the bus.  

    How many times can I get kicked in the teeth and go back for more?  That the GOP guy is crazy isn't really working as motivation for me.  Because the Dems may not be crazy, but they always seem to compromise with crazy enough that it doesn't make much difference in the end.  I mean what good is it that Obama's allegedly pro-choice and nominates pro-choice justices, if he's willing to make it more difficult for anyone to exercise that choice through the restrictions implemented as the compromise on health insurance reform and support for conscience clauses that he gives away in the name of compromise?   If you can't exercise your choice, it's not worth very much.


    Deeds (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    was a terrible choice and wasnt he another darling of the blogs?

    for some blogs. (none / 0) (#5)
    by alex1 on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    I think it was more anti-McAuliffe sentiment then anything else (seeing that Moran's candidacy kind of burned to the ground).

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#10)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:55:41 AM EST
    Typical "progressive" blog stuff, unfortunately. They declared McAuliffe to be evil, for no particular reason other than him being "centrist" and "Clintonite". So it became "anybody but McAuliffe".

    I hate that crap. And I'm in an especially pissy mood about the "progressive" purity stuff today. Here in Albuquerque, we just had a mayoral election. We had a decent Dem incumbent. But, the "progressives" decided they didn't like him, and supported a 3rd candidate, another Dem who ran a purity campaign and mainly attacked the Dem incumbent.

    You can guess the result. The 3rd candidate, the Republican, won because the Dems were divided, and the Republicans motivated.


    Parent

    some particular reasons (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Illiope on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    McAuliffe is a symptom of a larger democratic problem. call it the neoliberalization of the party, the corporatization, "reaganization", whatever. and McAuliffe has made himself a lap dog to his corporate paymasters, and has done a masterful job in profiting from his contacts.

    Terry McAuliffe didn't just use his business contacts to fatten the accounts of the Democratic National Committee; he also deftly exploited them to inflate his own fortune, which now nudges toward nine figures. A similar fruitful intimacy with corporate cronies led to Tony Coelho's stunning fall from grace, but McAuliffe never looked back. His trajectory has been decidedly prosperous and, to this point, utterly immune to the slumping fortunes of the economy outside the confines of the Beltway. These days McAuliffe says he wants to resurrect the Misery Index, but he's not acquainted with any of the numbers.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10192004.html

    to assume that people just don't like for 'no particular reason' is a fallacy, imo.

    Parent

    That doesn't even get into his reign as DNC (none / 0) (#31)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    Chair- he was basically the anti-Dean, narrow focus only invest in races you're sure to win, etc. that kind of turned off the Netroots just a little bit.

    Parent
    IIRC, your Dem incumbent (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    really is a bit of a jerk. Still, if you're going to have a nonpartisan primary, you really have to set the threshold at higher than 40%, or you just invite spoilers and candidate cloning. .

    Parent
    Chavez (none / 0) (#16)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    The "jerk" image isn't really justified. Sure, his ill-fated run for Senate wasn't exactly a proud moment for him (and he did act like a jerk in that), but he did have the good sense to pull out (after some pressure, I'm sure).

    Overall, he did a pretty good job as mayor. And that's all you can ask for, really.

    It got really annoying when "progressives" complained about Bill Clinton recording a robocall for him. And the other Dem candidate, while appearing to be a nice guy in person, ran a pretty empty campaign, mostly attacking Chavez on purity arguments, and even appearing at a press conference with the Republican.

    And yeah, the 40% threshold seems low. I wish there were primaries for the mayoral race.

    Anyway. Now we're stuck with an anti-immigrant, "pro traditional marriage" mayor. Woo. Hoo. A great Progressive(tm) victory.

    Parent

    Well, I'll tell you what (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    I didn't even know there was an election happening. Granted, I live across the country, but yours isn't a tiny city.

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    well that's a strike against Albuquerque.  (Very off-topic:  I have been thinking about moving there or Santa Fe.  What's it like?)

    Parent
    It'll be purity over something insignificant too. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:32:56 PM EST
    It won;t be about single payer or something significant policy wise.

    Parent
    The only thing I like about progressives (none / 0) (#23)
    by me only on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:50:37 PM EST
    is that they think single payer matters in a mayoral election.  

    Parent
    It's got to matter someplace right? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:59:28 PM EST
    Doesn't seem to mater at the national level.

    Parent
    Moran (none / 0) (#30)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:26:13 PM EST
    was the canidate the left really liked if I remember correctly, everyone just went to Deeds because he presented a better option than Terry- seriously, McAufflie's a great fundraiser but I can't really see why anyone would have thought he was a good gubernatorial canidate.

    Parent
    Purity is an interesting thing (none / 0) (#33)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    and is one of the bigger dividing lines on this and other Left-of-center blogs, we either demand it or we make excuses for the lack of it, and it seems almost random at times which position we take.

    Parent
    Get Ranked choice voting in your town. (none / 0) (#37)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:05:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Better yet, don't (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 05:07:46 PM EST
    It's not monotone. In other words, you can switch your vote to the winner and cause him to lose.

    Parent
    We had this discussion before. (none / 0) (#44)
    by hairspray on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 05:16:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    so it's more knee jerk stuff that brings us loser candidates whether they actually win the election or not.

    I guess they didnt realize that McAuliffe was actually a better joker than this candidate and he's attacking the very people that promoted him.

    Parent

    In what way was McAuliffe better (none / 0) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    Moran- I can see that heck from what I remember the Netroots had his back, but Terry- the guy managed to lose despite having a substantial lead with only a little time left and a major funding edge- how on Earth would that make anyone think he was the better choice.

    Parent
    because (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 05:35:34 PM EST
    once again you are focusing on the wrong things. McAuliffe supported the public options among other things. From what I read, he basically split the vote with Moran and this guy ended up winning. Another whiner who doesnt know how to fight.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    I'll vote for Deeds because he's better than Captain Caveman but I didn't canvas for him. All the fools who were gloating about how defeating Terry was sticking another shiv in Clinton's back can do that for all the good it will do him. I almost feel bad for Deeds because he does have a point, the Democrats have done little to nothing to help him carry a state that seesaws between red or blue. Of course, he should be doing most the heavy lifting himself. After all, He IS the one who would be running the state. I've heard little to nothing from him advertisement wise and gotten no mailers( I have gotten them from McDonnell.)

    Frankly, the state option public insurance plan may be a Hail Mary pass that Deeds can throw because I'm pretty sure McDonnell is not going to be supporting a public option.

    Parent

    Well, MacAuliffe did have a history (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 12:26:39 PM EST
    and it was one Real Democrats didn't have much taste for seeing back in power.

    Parent
    Deeds was the darling of the Washington Post (none / 0) (#51)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 02:20:56 AM EST
    It was the glowing endorsement of the Washington Post that changed the outcome of the primary.  

    Deeds has run a terrible campaign.  He hasn't articulated well his positions on anything, his ads are awful, and he hasn't preformed well in debates.  People are looking for a reason to support him, he hasn't given them any.   It's all very sad.  He's hurting the party in Virginia from the top down.  Lots of democrat delegates/candidates are nervous.  

    Parent

    How silly is it to have a 4-year term limit. (none / 0) (#7)
    by steviez314 on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    Or maybe it's a stroke of genius.

    Its way, way too short (none / 0) (#39)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:14:57 PM EST
    12 years I can see (I'd begrudgingly agree to 8)- it prevents a Governor from becoming an institution, but 4?! That basically lets the lobbyist set the agenda for the first year or so, and frankly given the absence of re-election it removes all electoral accountability from the Governor's office (unless the winner plans to do what both Warner's did).

    Parent
    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#9)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 11:55:22 AM EST
    If he can't beat his right wing whacko opponent on his own merit, he surely can't blame DC. McDonnell is as unhinged as you can get! This should have been a definite win for the Democrat's.

    Sure he could (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    If you don't think what is occurring in DC causes folks in Va to look askance at anyone wearing the Democratic label you obviously don't live here.

    Parent
    Has the Pres. weighed in on behalf of (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 01:23:30 PM EST
    Mr. Deeds?

    Yes briefly (none / 0) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    He did a fundraiser and sent out reminders to make sure everyone was aware of the registration deadline.

    Parent
    Obama is not coming back to VA (none / 0) (#52)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 02:26:29 AM EST
    for Deeds, according to Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.  They say Obama fears Deeds will lose and doesn't want to be seen as supporting a loser.  Obama will go back to NJ for Corzine, according to them.

    Parent
    I know nothing about this race (none / 0) (#36)
    by MikeDitto on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 04:01:53 PM EST
    And I don't want to. I care as much about Virginia politics as most Virginians care about Colorado politics.

    But who are you quoting when using the word "liberals" in quotation marks? I did a CTRL-F on that Politico article and I can't find that word in there once. Did Deeds say that? Politico?

    Deeds Doomed? Pointing Fingers Before Election Day | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment