Further to the discussion of Al Weed’s mailer, it seems useful to provide a copy of Bern Ewert’s similar mailer. Ewert sent out a single page photocopied letter that spent two paragraphs (perhaps a quarter of the letter) going after Weed. The relevant excerpt:
If this is the mailer that the other thread referred to then I think that Al’s takes the cake (cake=more welcomed by “The Decider’s” party). Ewert’s mailer might be a little harsh on Al’s campaign record, But Al’s mailer is just dirty.
As a side note, Al could have simply responded with a statement illuminating how much he has learned from those losses. And how that knowledge has taught him how to avoid clerical errors like the ones that seem to hamper Ewert (i.e. FEC filing).
In my opinion Al seems like a more “fleshed out” candidate than Ewert and has a greater opportunity to focus this candidate debate on the issues (his views being much more clearly defined by his previous campaigns). I would even think such a strategy would be more beneficial to Al’s campaign.
WTF is right in suggesting what would have been the most appropriate response from Al Weed. In their book Buck Up, Suck Up…And Come Back When You Foul Up, James Carville and Paul Begala write, “Perseverance. Toughness. Tenacity. Those are the qualities that make the difference. Real winners know they’ve got to lose a lot.”
We all know the history of Abraham Lincoln’s many political losses before being elected President. We know about Ronald Reagan’s failed bid for the Republican nomination in 1976. We know about Winston Churchill’s “wilderness years”. Rather than attacking a fellow Democrat, Al Weed should be recounting these stories and wearing his past losses as a badge of honor and reminding us of the lessons he’s learned. Voters need to be reminded about other great leaders who have risen to victory from the ashes of defeat.
Bern has alienated a lot of people in his public service career, voters should know this about him.
I’ll give you another interesting example. As I recall, Davy Crockett lost his first race before being elected to the 20th Congress in 1825. Then he came back and won in ’27. Davy Crockett also uttered what may be the best political quote of all time in 1835 (shortly after losing his bid for reelection to a lawyer with a wooden leg):
“Since you have chosen to elect a man with a timber toe to succeed me, you may all go to hell and I will go to Texas.”
And to get completely off-topic, note that Davy Crockett was the likely Whig nominee for President in 1836. The insiders were behind him, he had a couple of campaign books in print (including an autobiography) and had just completed a 3 week campaign swing through the Eastern states. The guy was a living legend even back then. But then he lost his reelection to Congress by something like 250 votes and a whole, crazy-cool alternate future for the United States was wiped out.
I respect Harry’s desire (expressed in the comments on these three postings) for a positive campaign on the issues, rather than name-calling. That said, I think we have to be realists and realize that a significant portion of the electorate is mature, much less high-minded, and so negative attacks work.
Moreover, negatives are really the basis for Virgil’s vulnerability this year. As several folks have noted elsewhere about the 5th, it’s a socially-reactionary district – C’ville ‘liberals’ (Richards and Ewert are/will be presented this way by the GOP) aren’t going to do well. Al’s established record on a lot of those hot-button, polite-bigotry issues did hurt him in ’04 – and he was above hitting back at Virgil on the same level (eg, VaNG vs. Vietnam). This year, Virgil is in real trouble because of the Abrahamoff/MZM corruption, and the expiration of the 10 year textile quota system. To win, any Democrat is going to need to be pounding Virgil on those issues – pounding him with negatives – to overcome the automatic social issues handicap.
To that end, Al’s demonstrated willingness to hit should make Democrats a lot more comfortable about him this go round. Actions speak louder than words: Harry, here’s your evidence he’s “reminding us of the lessons he’s learned.”
I do not think Al’s flier is any nastier than Bern’s – Bern called Al a big loser – and he reached way back 30 years to make the point – Al’s mentioning the trail of unhappyness that followed Bern is absolutely no worse. It seems like the worst “going negative” sin anyone’s managed to discern in Al’s flier is the choice of the word “pocketed” – well, I don’t think the implication that someone got paid more than they deserved is any worse than reaching back 30 years to make the claim someone can’t win in a district.
I’ll turn it around for you to make the point: why couldn’t Bern have just said, “Al is a good guy, but he ran against Virgil in ’04, and lost badly, because … There’s no way to change that about Al, so pick me, I don’t have that issue.”
I’ll say this: I helped Al in ’96 w/ Emily Couric. We were absolutely out of our depth. Emily had been hard at work pressing the flesh for two years – as soon as Tom Michie collapsed (he was a legacy, and really, seemed to quit trying), she got busy filling the void. Al got in late. We got clobbered, early on. The smear about Creigh Deeds is also unfounded – Creigh had been in the house – he had a kind of incumbency advantage. Al was running in those races to overcome what had happened with Emily Couric: to get out there, and let people know who he is. Bern is the new kid right now, and he’s trying to drum up something, anything to try and overcome the currency Al’s built up.
What smear about Creigh Deeds?
Anybody tries to smear Creigh and I’ll kick his ass.
Jack – I’m sorry – I meant the smear from Bern about Al being a loser against Deeds – I was basically responding to the content of the Ewert flyer. I think Creigh is a great guy, I contributed to him in his run against McDonnell (that was a very hard loss), and I intend nothing against him in that statement.
Creigh is a well-known guy in the valley, with a good record of public service – people there didn’t know Al. Frankly, I think Bern Ewert has much the same problem Al had in those earlier races: except for a few party insiders, most people really don’t know who he is. I think all the sturm und drang is Bern’s way of getting on the radar.
Al’s been driving around the 5th district talking to people for the past two years. He’s been making connections with community leaders voters trust, and if he’s not careful, some of them may begin to suspect that Democrats care about southside.
Rural independents can identify with Al because he’s more familiar — he’s a farmer, a gun owner, he inhabits the same world they do, and he’s a really personable guy. These voters may mess up our nice neat left-right scale, but they’re not guessing when they go to the polls.
As of the end of March: Virgil has $466,110 cash on hand. Al has $48,387 cash on hand. Bern has $9,929 cash on hand.
Neither Al nor Bern can seriously argue that their name recognition comes anywhere near Virgil’s.
Virgil has been able to float the fiction that although he is a Republican he really is a maverick, and therefore should not be held liable for the excesses of the current Congressional leadership.
Virgil has bubba charm.
Virgil will ignore the Democratic candidate because he can.
Virgil will win.
Why should the Democrats even try? …because the Democrats can build the party for a real shot at 2008. The local committees in the 5th CD need to better identify as a team. The local committees need help. They need resources and they need support in party building. Campaigns can help do that. Candidates and their campaigns have a tendency to think it is all about them. It’s not really. Candidates that help build the team contribute for future success.
Both candidates should start thinking about how they would heal this rift after May 20. The apologists are still spinning the low road. They don’t seem to be able to distinguish between hard hitting and slime.
I agree with the other posters that losing doesn’t have to be all bad – providing that the loss functions as a building block for future success. We will see on May 20th if the nominee is in it for himself or for the party.
Neither of these guys could beat a rented mule.
It’s time to draft a candidate who could win and make us proud.
Draft Mrs. Richards.
I’m not sure why my earlier post was deleted. Certainly not in the spirit of the 1st Amendment or the monument thereto.
Greg,
Can you tell me where the hard hitting ends and the slime begins? Because, seems like to me a candidate’s possible FEC violations is legit ground for his oppenent to cover.
I believe that these are the rules of the whole game. Saying that he might go to jail, granted, could be considered extreme; but violation of these rules do have real very real and hard consequences.
Its all speculation: might have been a mistake, might have been a technicality, but it also might could have been to gain some unfair advantage that compliance would inhibit.
Who knows, but it is just like that corporate money, that somehow found its way into Texas; despite a state probation against corporate donations. Did it happen before the law was enacted? Was it just a technicality: innocent until proven guilty, right? But here we are every Democrat it the county saying, “Delay and the culture of corruption.”
I know, I know this is like comparing Bern to Hitler, but I hope you see my point.
If this exact same possible liability belonged to a Republican would you still feel the same? No, you would be firing both guns.
Would we want to field a candidate with this liability? Would the Republicans give us any quarter regarding this liability?
Kind of gets to the heart of what the mailer was about, doesn’t it?
All I am saying is if Bern gets the nomination Bern better come up with a better response to these questions than “Al is mean, and dirty and he smells bad, too.”; because that certainly won’t work against Virgil.
I am in total agreement with you on the need for the candidates, at this point in the game, to be mainly party building mechanics.
I would say that this gets to the heart of why I am supporting Al. I certainly gave Bern a chance. Just like you I want a Democrat to win, and despite of my affection for Al, his last showing wasn’t great.
But in the end, I decided that Al has been absolutely working his butt off for the last 2 years, trying to grapple with the issues facing Dems on both the political side and the policy side. And he has been bringing new people into the process the whole way. I feel that Al has been making the party stronger.
Bern, on the other hand, just seems to rub people the wrong way. He might be a great guy, I don’t know, but I have heard that over and over again. Can he really be a leader?
So, you can disagree with this recent detour into “negative” campaigning, but you have to give Al his due for the work he has done.
Does one negate the other? I suppose the caucus will decide that .
The Mentioner,
I like your lingo.
But if memory serves me (serves me right to suffer)
that ol’ rented mule has already bucked Ms. Richards pretty bad, too.
The Mentioner,
Also, I believe that your earlier post was in the previous thread, regarding this topic.
Hard to keep tracking, this has got people talking. All most a 100 respones on this blog, alone.
Y’all,
ok, so tonight I can’t sleep right or write right.
Greg Kane – I think you’re quite right about much of Virgil’s advantages – I think the 5th is a very tough district for anyone running as a real Democrat – I think that’s why Virgil changed affiliation. He’s managed to make that wishy-washy flip-flop into a sign of party independence, and he does sound like he’s from southside.
But, Virgil had to pay attention to Al last go round – he was able to ignore Meredith Richards. Al does have name recognition from that; Bern does not.
Virgil is also tied into the constant national news about the Abrahamoff scandal, and that will tie him to the party leadership.
The war is dragging on, and while people in the 5th are overwhelmingly pro-military, Virgil will have to respond to policy debates raised by anyone on that issue. Certainly, someone with Al’s background can talk convincingly and seriously about challenging the implementation/prosecution of the war, and the GOP’s treatment of veterans and active servicemen; Bern’s service is to be respected, but not so fresh. Virgil’s service record is not as strong as even Bern’s, and although he’s on the VA funding subcommittee, it’s not clear that he’s been very effective in that area.
The Mentioner – you have got to be kidding about Meredith. I was a constituent of hers in c’ville, and while I think she’s a nice enough person, she will the poster child for C’ville liberals. Richards would be a total Leslie Byrne repeat. She certainly wasn’t all that impressive as a councilor, although she was a sensible voice on the MPO. I doubt the GOP could hope for a better candidate. It’s a lot like the year Ollie North went up against Chuck Robb – we were very fortunate the GOP picked such an absolute criminal wingnut – anybody more reasonable and Robb would come out just as he did with George Allen. Bottom line: Weed did better against Virgil in ’04 than Richards did in ’02. She will be the popular candidate only inside the C’ville Dem. party, and you could not pick a more out-of-step with the district subset of the polity.
Because you posted it three times. Knock it off.
Actually, the be perfectly fair to Meredith she did, very slightly, out perform Al. While the total number of voters were different (150,000 vs 270,000) the percentage of vote is the real performance indicator, Meredith earned 36.48% in 2002 and Al 36.28% in 2004.
Perhaps the important thing to consider is that the filing date for candidates in a non-primary, which is what this is, is June 13th. This means that if both candidates damagae themselves beyond what the convention feels is acceptable, a third (compromise) candidate could emerge. This is not likely, but it is possible.