Whatever one might think of Rep. Tom Perriello, only a fool or a liar would deny that the guy has cojones.
Just look at what he did this evening: speak at the monthly meeting of the Jefferson Area Tea Party. Consider that for a moment. Perriello is, for the second year in a row, holding dozens of town hall meetings across the district. Last year he held more such meetings than any other member of congress, and I imagine he’ll set the record this year, too. That’s really quite remarkable. Those of us in the district have come to regard this as normal, but it’s really not.
Can you imagine Virgil Goode having ever done this sort of thing? Speaking at—to use the left-wing equivalent of teabaggers—a meeting of angry socialists? Taking questions, some hostile, from audiences of hundreds of people? Of course not! Save for the minimal number of debates with challengers, I don’t remember Goode ever addressing an audience more challenging than his own donors, and that includes when he was a Democrat, independent, and a Republican.
I wonder if Robert Hurt might be willing to commit to doing the same thing, if elected. Would he agree to hold two dozen public forums throughout the district each year, take unscreened questions from audience members, and respond to all of them? Like all challengers, he’d almost certainly say “yes,” but the important thing is to get him on the record, in case he does win. If he does emerge victorious next November, I’d put $50 up against anybody that he won’t meet or exceed the bar established by Perriello in this regard.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a more responsive, more open congressman in the nation than Rep. Perriello. Don’t lose sight of that.
I’m not sure this is the appropriate emotion, but I felt proud when I saw the footage on the news this morning.
One comment that I heard during the story on the news stuck out. Someone in the audience said “I respect your position, but I don’t respect you.” I was baffled. How can you not respect someone who is willing to do what Perriello has done?
The link has changed for some reason.
http://www2.godanriver.com/news/2010/aug/26/tea-partiers-give-perriello-earful-ar-475111/
When I attended the health care forum in Charlottesville last year, I came away with a lot more respect for the congressman and a lot less respect for my fellow constituents.
I’m talking on both sides of the political spectrum; more than once, the congressman would give a long, detailed explanation about why he didn’t support single-payer, and the next person would come up and ask why he didn’t support single-payer, usually prefacing the question with a long, rambling setup.
To be fair, there were a lot of questions on both sides that were respectful. But the Congressman answered every question with respect, whether it was deserved or not. I honestly don’t know why anyone would want this job, with what he’s had to deal with.
Thanks for the updated link, Mark!
It was a campaign event, and all the candidates have spoken at recent Tea Party meetings. BFD.
“All the candidates” is meaningless—one is a Republican, the other an even farther-right Republican. And of course it was a campaign event, but it was one that few congressman would dare to attempt. No good will come of it: not only will not one of those people vote for Perriello, but the obvious result is news coverage that says “Perriello speaks, audience angry.”
Seriously, are you aware of any analog for Virgil Goode, as a congressman? Or any Virginia Republican congressman? Even something as simple as speaking to groups of straight-up Democrats, never mind socialists?
I recall George Allen, French Slaughter, Rob Bell, Peter Way, and various other GOP office holders speaking at meetings of the League of Women Voters during election season.
Same thing.
Uh. No. No it’s not.
Nope. Not even close to the same thing. The League of Women Voters is not a partisan organization. It has Dems, Repubs and Independents. That’s why it’s trusted to host debates.
It is telling that I.Publius considers the league of women voters forum left-wing. Shows just how far to the right he is.
Um… sure, guys. Keep telling yourselves that. They’re technically non-partisan because they don’t endorse candidates. But (to borrow a phrase from above) only a fool or a liar would deny that they advocate policies from a left-leaning perspective with vigor. Take your pick — gun control, abortion, universal health care, illegal immigration, entitlement programs.
Unions are non-partisan, too… right?
Virgil Goode? The guy was scared of his own shadow by 2008. He could not appear in anything except the most scripted events or at fairs when he was surrounded by supporters or staff, when they weren’t making movies….
The Fifth is really shaping up to be the most fascinating race in the nation. You’ve got a guy who should be toast (Periello) and a nice guy who’s doing his best to pet the nuts on their wee little heads without alienating the sane voters in the district. It’s going to be an interesting fall with the debates and heightened media coverage in which Robert is going to have to keep trying to thread the needle of keeping the “base” happy while appealing to the more moderate voters he has to win to get elected. And no, there is absolutely no way he can win this election without some significant votes out of Albemarle/C’ville/Nelson. The demographics on the southern end of the district are not good for the GOP as its getting older and more and more people are moving out which only increases the northern end’s impact. If Hurt’s team thinks that they can lose the northern end by a 65-35 margin, then they must expect an unbelievable turnout elsewhere. I don’t know what you’re seeing Waldo, but I just don’t see any activity for Hurt in the area. Yes, the Tea Party is showing up to protest Periello’s office. However, I’m not seeing actual movement or energy for Hurt himself at all except out of the usual GOP officials.
I was in Danville last week visiting my parents, and Periello definitely has been putting some significant money and time in organizing the African-American community. North Main, Clement, Bradley, Leemont, etc. are covered in Periello signs and bumper stickers. Didn’t see anything significant for Hurt on West Main or in Forest Hills except an occasional bumper sticker. If the GOP doesn’t have energy in those areas of the City, I don’t know where it would. I guess Hurt’s banking on the fact that he’s a hometown guy and that will carry the day in Danville.
I just want to be clear here:It’s your position that the League of Women Voters is as far to the left as the Tea Party is to the right?
I’m with you—I’m not seeing anything yet. There’s way more visibility for the corporate-backed teabagger stuff (“November’s Coming,” etc.) than the zero visibility for Hurt.
Yes, the LWV is at least as far to the left as the Tea Party is to the right. If you think otherwise, please identify a particular political issue on which the LWV is not in lock-step with left-wing Democrats.
Good luck with that. On abortion, environment, gun control, smoking in public, tax policy, welfare, gender issues, illegal immigration — the LWV is Pelosi-esque.
I could barely get through the buzzwords and imaginary threats to Amurca, and even so, it is still nearly unintelligible.
Recite the litany all you want, but you are wrong.
Some of your comments on this thread struck me as comedic, but, like other right wing ‘comics’, like Dennis Miller and Norm McDonald, you aren’t funny either.
I have a challenge for you: find evidence that the LWV expressed these “beliefs” of theirs during a debate, and I will believe your charge.
What they do in their day-to-day work is not what I am talking about.
Find it, or find a new whipping post to hang your unfortunate rhetoric on.
Sport, do your own googling. The positions I referenced are such common knowledge that any judge would take judicial notice of them.
Your claim, your search Sparky.
This proves the emptiness of your arguments.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So put up, or change subjects.
Mark’s got a point, I.Publius.
Let’s see your cards.
Enjoy.
Immigration: http://www.lwvil.org/IL_Immigration_Position.asp
Artic drilling: http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=22&ContentID=4352
Global Warming: (somebody ought to clue them in that since the planet has been cooling for 10 years, the Algore groupies have switched to “Climate Change.”) — http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Clean_Air&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=22&ContentID=4354
Abortion: (The LWV refers to itself as a “pro-choice organization”) — http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=13767
Gun control: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/93153-gun-control-advocates-rally-against-voting-bill-rights-bill
In general: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/03/15/league-of-women-voters-comes-under-attack-as-republicans-call-it-left-of-center/6982/
The LWV ratings of politicians:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4206 — (Mark, a 100 rating means the politican voted 100% in line with LWV policy positions.) John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barack Obama, John Conyers, Joe Biden, Charles Rangel and dozens of other left-wing Democrats all scored 100. Eric Cantor gets a 20, and the vast majority of Republicans are in the teens or below.
But yeah, the LWV is “non-partisan.”
Enjoy!
Immigration: http://www.lwvil.org/IL_Immigration_Position.asp
Artic drilling: http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=22&ContentID=4352
Global Warming: (somebody ought to clue them in that since the planet has been cooling for 10 years, the Algore groupies have switched to “Climate Change.”) — http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Clean_Air&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=22&ContentID=4354
Abortion: (The LWV refers to itself as a “pro-choice organization”) — http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=13767
Gun control: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/93153-gun-control-advocates-rally-against-voting-bill-rights-bill
In general: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/03/15/league-of-women-voters-comes-under-attack-as-republicans-call-it-left-of-center/6982/
The LWV ratings of politicians:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4206 — (Mark, a 100 rating means the politican voted 100% in line with LWV policy positions.) John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barack Obama, John Conyers, Joe Biden, Charles Rangel and dozens of other left-wing Democrats all scored 100. Eric Cantor gets a 20, and the vast majority of Republicans are in the teens or below.
But yeah, the LWV is “non-partisan.”
“I have a challenge for you: find evidence that the LWV expressed these “beliefs” of theirs during a debate, and I will believe your charge.
What they do in their day-to-day work is not what I am talking about.”
I thought I was pretty clear on that challenge, but maybe you would rather cite items not in the challenge that attempt to prove your point.
I won’t bother to argue your side points about the climate cooling or other issues. Again, not in the challenge.
I was all set to side with MB till I.Publius rolled out that last post. I think the LWV was pretty nonpartisan but now I’m not sure sure. Taking positions is clear sign of intent.
I’m repeatedly struck by I.Publius’s odd concept of where the middle of the political spectrum is in this country. The positions he cites the LWV as taking are all shared by much of the country. Many of them are even shared by the clear majority. Yet that cannot be said about most of the tea parties’ positions (granted, I’m having to interpolated those positions a bit as the parties seem to lack a coherent, unified platform). Seems like he thinks the middle is much further right than it actually is.
Lemme guess, Will. You consider yourself to be in the middle, right? Along with Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Charles Rangel.
Nope.
Perriello is getting my vote. The fact that he is willing to go to Tea Party events and speak to their audience- even though they refuse to listen to common sense. That earns kudos from me.
Virgil would never have done that.
I was irritated by some of his “town hall” actions last year, because it looked like he (or one of his paid people who do that sort of thing for a living) was trying to manipulate things so he’d get a response he wanted to hear.
Example.
He announced a “health care” town hall meeting in Scottsville at Valley Theater. The Venue only seats 200 people, but he mailed the advertisments to the “Scottsville Town Hall” not to any one Scottsville resident, but to every person within the democratic stronghold of the city of Charlottesville and the transplant areas north of Cville.
And he did all of this *after* he had conducted his “Town Hall” meeting for the “city residents” at the MLK Auditorium at CHS.
That looked to me (and still looks now) like attempted manipulation.
But I like Perriello better than the Rhino Republicans or the Jihadi Tea Baggers.
So I will be supporting Perriello this fall.
This seems germane: Lynchburg Tea Party closes to the public a meeting with Perriello, a meeting previously agreed-upon and announced as being open to the public/media. The reasoning apparently is that because the LTP banned the public/media from meetings with Hurt and Goodlatte, they had to do the same to Perriello. Apparently the LTP chairman arranged the meeting to be open to public/media, but then a “Temporary Executive Committee” (!!!) overruled him, and now there is a Chairman of the Temporary Executive Committee (!!!!!!!).
Perriello, having agreed to an open meeting, is not going to attend the newly closed meeting. Instead, he’s going to take questions from anyone who shows up at Captain D’s Seafood Restaurant in Lynchburg.
To me, local tea partiers look like infighting, nervous nellies worried about controlling access to events. Tom looks like a confident guy who will talk to anyone who shows up. I think I’ll send him some money right now.
Why would Hurt and Goodlatte have wanted their meetings to be closed to the public/media?
New SurveyUSA poll out (last SUSA poll in parentheses):
Hurt: 61% (58%)
Perriello: 35% (35%)
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c99d02f1-c85b-48f7-b4ea-b11209a4dc71
I assume the sames grains of salt as last time… but still, this doesn’t help Perriello.
Stick a fork in him, he’s done.
Perriello is just about where he was this date in 2008 Michael. And the Republican Party still doesn’t have a sensible plan for governing the nation. Same as it ever was.
I know, Bubby. But 2 years ago Perriello was a little-known political outsider. In 2010, he’s the incumbant who’s very well known, from traveling the district and being on national TV. I just don’t see it as a good thing if he’s just about where he was in 2008. I don’t think that’s going to be good enough this time around.
That said, I don’t even know how accurate that poll is. People have poo-pood SUSA in the past.
The poll might be BS in amount of margin but this looks very bad for Perriello. He barely won 2 years ago while riding Obama’s coat tails to a 727 vote spread.
Unless Hurt makes a major mistake, he will beat Perriello by a comfortable margin. No matter how much Perriello supporters want it, I see little that will stop this from happening. It ain’ over but if the economy doesn’t improve VERY quickly Perriello should look forward to a nice job in the Obama adminstration.
Tom is a fine man and has work very hard at his job- I’m proud of him really. Demographics and the economy are the two things he can’t change no matter how hard he works at it. That math can’t be swayed by the political process. Add that republicans can smell a victory and that just improves republican turn out and supresses democrats.
Actually, Tom outperformed Obama in the 5th District. McCain won the district, and so did Tom, albeit by a small margin.
Tom also has not released a second commercial which I am sure is coming. That will help also.
A TV ad isn’t making up that gap no matter how good it is unless it’s got Hurt killing puppies on film while wearing his bondage gear that reveals a tattoo of Nancy Pelosi on his right buttocks. You all are whistling thru the graveyard if you can’t see that Perriello is in deep, deep trouble
I know that it has nothing to do with the central topic of this thread, but the crap that I. Publius is putting out about the League of Women Voters needs a response. The problem with this debate about whether the LWV is “liberal,” or “Democratic,” is that, as Stephen Colbert repeatedly points out, “Reality has a liberal bias.”
Let’s just take one issue — global warming.
Here, quoting from the LWV website that I. Publius referred to, is the LWV position on global warming:
“Global warming is one of the most serious threats to our environment, our health and our economy. The most recent scientific studies prove that climate change from global warming is already causing environmental changes that will have significant economic and social impacts worldwide. In 2005, the U.S. Senate recognized that global warming is a real threat and that the time had come for strong federal policy, but final legislation has never been enacted.”
Those who have some memory will recall that the U.S. Senate was controlled by Republicans in 2005. Does that mean that the LWV was a Republican organization in 2005? In 2008, the Republican Party platform (the most recent one, according to the Party website) recognized that we needed to do something on what THEY called “climate change” (does that make them Al Gore clones?):
“The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.”
Does that mean that the LWV was a Republican tool in 2008?
The LWV studies issues and does not care which party is on which side. When they took their global warming position, both Democrats and Republicans agreed with that position. Both Republicans and Democrats, and the LWV, could see the polar ice caps melting and sea levels rising. Both Republicans and Democrats, and the LWV, could see average world-wide temperatures rising. Both Republicans and Democrats, and the LWV, could see that Glacier National Park is headed toward becoming Montana Mountains National Park because the glaciers were disappearing. Those are the facts that virtually all thinking people have recognized, including the LWV.
Now, though, that many prominent Republicans have backed away from their own previously-stated positions on global warming(John McCain, Mitt Romney), and now that the Tea Party wing of the GOP is in control of the message, the unofficial Republican positions on the issue ignore science (“Global warming? What global warming?”), and fall back to demagoguery. Meanwhile, the LWV still has the same (Republican) policy that it had in 2005 and in 2008. They have not changed, and the data have not changed; only the Republicans have changed. Does that make the LWV anti-Republican? No, just anti-idiot. And when the Republican Party takes a position that is pro-idiot, whose fault is that?
I should add that when my mother and my grandmother were Republicans, they were members of the League. When Republicans went nuts and they became Democrats, they remained members of the League. They didn’t change, and the League didn’t change. The Republicans did.
cvllelaw,
All your spinning aside, an observer need look only at the LWV scores of politicians to understand their organizational bent. The LVW adores Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel, and they loathe Eric Cantor and all other conservatives. The LWV — as an institution — is a thoroughly politically liberal organization.
NYT reports that the national Dems are probably going to cut Perriello loose:
Ouch.