For your holiday pleasure, please take a minute to vote in this poll. I think it will be interesting because all four of the names floated around represent a certain aspect of the Republican Party. Allen is now the establishment, Marshall is the grassroots conservative, Brownlee is the candidate of rural Virginia that has taken a beating lately, and Davis is the moderate. Interesting . . .
create free polls | comment on this
create free polls | comment on this
Other - Rob Wittman - Net-centric Conservative ...just saying!
Posted by: bmo | December 29, 2009 at 12:04 AM
What uh wack bunch: too white, way too uptight an' ya know das right!
Vote fo' Other and brace yo'self foo'!
Posted by: Gangsta | December 29, 2009 at 12:05 AM
I really doubt Bob Marshall would be the grassroots candidate in a matchup with Allen. Either a primary or convention would not even be close. Ever seen the reception Allen gets anywhere he goes within the state GOP? I do not regret supporting Marshall over Gilmore and would gladly do so again but George Allen is a completely different story. If he wants a rematch I think the field will be cleared. No one wants to take him on in an inter party matchup.
Posted by: mytwocents | December 29, 2009 at 07:52 AM
George Allen blew himself up last time. Losing because the environment was bad is wone thing. Losing because you couldn't control your mouth is something else.
Do we want to go through 6 more months of M***** again! I don't. Bob Marshall is a candidate I can enthusiastically support. He's principled, hard-working and has more personality and charisma than many realize. Marshall for Senate in 2012!
Posted by: George Templeton | December 29, 2009 at 11:01 AM
DC needs George Allen! not the other way around.
Posted by: George Allen is the Father of Free Market Virginia! | December 29, 2009 at 01:56 PM
George Allen was a great Senator then and would be again
Posted by: notnotlarrysabato | December 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM
I agree entirely with mytwoscents. I strongly supported Marshall in 2008, but if it were a Marshall v. Allen match in 2012, I would be under the Allen tent, as I'm sure many of Marshall's former supporters would be.
As for your post, Marshall WAS the grassroots candidate, but, like Bolling (and McDonnell, for that matter) in 2009, George Allen enjoys the support of both the Establishment AND most of the grassroots. That's what makes him such a great candidate.
Posted by: frashure | December 30, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Bob Marshall is too far right to make it in a moderate Virginia, especially against a Jim Webb who has incumbent advantage; he wont carry NOVA moderates and lean dems because he doesnt have that appeal. Same with Allen, that ship has sailed and he's yesterdays news. Whittman would be interesting. Davis would have a problem getting the base excited especially if he beat Allen or Marshall in a nasty Primary.
Posted by: Local GOP | December 30, 2009 at 02:04 PM
I think its also important to understand that the grassroots alone is not enough to win a state wide election. Its a balancing act between keeping the base happy and excited and not driving away the moderates and independents.
Posted by: Local GOP | December 30, 2009 at 02:12 PM
Local GOP,
I agree with you about Allen being toast in Northern Virginia. He's "Old Virginia," his manner and style is that of a state still rural and still southern. Its just not that way.
I disagree about Marshall though. I think he's represented Northern Virginia long enough to know what is important up here and how to win over moderates and independents because of his quirky and engaging personality and his knowledge of the issues. Cuccinelli proved that conservatives can win statewide and win convincingly. The races obviously aren't the same but all three of our statewides were conservatives and they won running away with it.
His delegate district is a lean-Dem district and statewide and federal Democrats have done quite well there, and every year Marshall wins running away. Its because when voters get to know Marshall they like him, they like his unbending principles, and its that principle that in many ways makes him an independent.
Posted by: Chris | December 30, 2009 at 05:23 PM
Chris,
Marshall's community roots help him win in a lean dem district. Look at Cook's win in Braddock over Moon, he had deeper community ties and that pushed him over. I think he will have a hard time in places where people dont know him like his district knows him. Marshall jumped into the Senate race against Gilmore because he didnt think Gilmore was hard lined against abortion enough. It's that type of campaigning that I fear he will do and thus lose the seat. Look at Connolly hitting Fimian on that same issue. It has traction and his vocal far right social positions will hurt him in a general, especially against a Webb type.
Yes, Cuccinelli won. But what we must understand is the coat-tail effect. He rode McDonnell (as did all Rs on the ballot)to victory, nothing more. People showed to vote for McDonnell or Deeds and voted down the ticket.
Posted by: Local GOP | December 30, 2009 at 07:31 PM
There were mutual coattails between McDonnell and Cuccinelli, they brought each other voters that were skeptical of them. I won't sit here and say Ken won without McDonnell's help, but they helped each other.
Your right that Marshall can't run for the Senate on the same thing that got him into the 2008 race. But the issues that are moving conservatives are issues that Marshall can easily tap in to. He's a natural fit as far as I can tell. If he campaigns on a broader set of principles he can absolutely make a run at this.
Posted by: Chris | December 30, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Local GOP,
I find it hard to believe that in a state that voted around 57% for a marriage amendment and that just elected an overwhelmingly pro-life AG, that the socially conservative Marshall will have a hard time winning.
I think that perhaps the supposed drag of social conservatism is more a personal wish of yours rather than reality.
Posted by: Steven Osborne | December 31, 2009 at 12:05 AM
I selected other...none of those selections are the most appetizing to my tastes.
Bob Marshall is great in my eyes for fiscal issues, but waaaay too socially conservative for my tastes.
John Brownlee...still don't know much about the guy, really.
Tom Davis sucks.
George Allen just seems to have too much baggage from his race with Webb...but then again, Webb isn't very popular these days.
Ah, who knows.
Posted by: Phil Chroniger | December 31, 2009 at 01:12 AM
George Allen would be, without a doubt, the BEST candidate for USS in 2012.
If he decided to forego the race, John Brownlee is an interesting choice.
I supported Brownlee for AG because of his strong record as U.S. Atty. for the Western Dist. of Va.
Marshall? No way he'd make a good USS candidate. I still remember his wishy-washy "endorsememt" of Gilmore at the 2008 convention. Folks can be judged by how they lose just as they can by how they win. Marshall lost badly and in doing so revealed his true character to me.
Tom Davis is too moderate/liberal and I doubt that conservatives could get fired-up about him. BUT having said that, he could be a strong candidate and might be okay as a nominee of the conservative party (GOP) were he to moderate his stands on the issues. IF he could do that w/o looking like he was pandering.
The safest, strongest, most exciting choice would be GEORGE ALLEN in 2012: Run, George, run!
Posted by: Allen Fan in SW VA | December 31, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Steven,
1. Gay marriage has also been banned in California. By your logic that means that California is lean/conservative. It is important to understand that voting for Senate is not the same as expressing an opinion on 1 single issue. Many minorities who are staunchly opposed to gay marriage (and voted that way) will not vote for a republican, for various reasons of course, unless a democrat (Brian Moran made this mistake) campaigns on overturning the gay marriage ban.
2. People are putting way too much stock into Cooch's election. This was a ticket race, and the ticket won. Virginia is counter cyclical state that votes opposite the White House. Cooch kept his mouth shut for the majority of the election and let McDonnell do the VAST majority of campaigning. In fact, I saw 1 Cooch ad the entire race on TV, only 1. I saw dozens of McDonnell ads (Fairfax Media Market).
3. Marshall wont have a hard time winning in a convention, because the only people (or at least majority) are social conservative/hard liners in the GOP. He will have a hard time winning against Jim Webb if he campaigns on social issues. Abortion doesn't pay my bills, gay marriage bans don't pay my bills, no social issue pays my bills and keeps food on my table. That is what the VAST majority of Virginians care about, not abortion and other social issues. Evidence of this rests in McDonnells win in Fairfax County. He didnt campaign on social issues, he campaigned on jobs, transportation, and the economy. Thats what people care about.
The candidate MUST fit the district. If we were in my home state of Mississippi of course, run the MOST social conservative you can find, because that candidate fits the district. But not in Virginia. Thats just politics. Nothing you or I can do about that.
But, 2012 is a long way away. There are an infinite number of possibilities for the Senate race against Webb.
Posted by: Local GOP | December 31, 2009 at 02:55 PM
I have to go with George Allen ;)
Posted by: Tony | December 31, 2009 at 04:37 PM
Local GOP,
If Virginia is so socially moderate or apathetic, then prove it. The main point of my argument is that Virginia is generally a socially conservative state. Your locality may not be, however, you need to look at the state writ large. I have given you real numbers to prove my point. You are right that minorities generally vote Democrat, however, according to McDonnell's campaign chairman Ed Gillespie, McDonnell appealed to minorities with his "family values" positions being a part of that appeal. So far you have not provided any evidence to prove that Virginia is a socially moderate state.
Posted by: Steven Osborne | January 01, 2010 at 01:15 PM
Steve,
You are misunderstanding me. I am not lumping EVERY person in the Commonwealth into one cookie-cutter ideological mold. You cant do that. People vote for dozens of different reasons. You are trying to create an assumption that the entire state is 'conservative' because the marriage ban passed. That only proves that the majority of voters wanted to ban gay marriage. It doesnt even prove that the majority of Virginians dont like gay marriage because the majority of voters didnt even vote.
That being said, I agree that a majority of voters are socially conservative. But that has nothing to do with voting. It depends on how a message is communicated.
Its like 'pro-life' vs 'anti-choice'. No one, and I mean no one, thinks that a good message to send from a GOP candidate is anti-choice.
Here is what I am pointing out. Campaigning on a hard liner social conservative message will not win in this state. It takes a well rounded message of all issues that do not come accross as extremist. There are a lot of people and you run the danger of charging up the dem base and having them come out in droves to vote.
The same can be said for the other side. The majority of people would agree with some principles that liberals have championed (whether they deserve credit or not) ie diversity, fairness, equal opportunity, etc.
If Bob Marshall starts campaigning on abortion, he loses. If he pulls a Dick Black and mails everyone a plastic fetus, he loses.
Its all about the way you campaign and the candidate fitting the district/state. A pro-choice republican is a better choice in NY, MA, CT, etc than a pro-life republican. Where as a pro-life republican is a better bet in the south.
Posted by: Local GOP | January 01, 2010 at 04:19 PM
Local GOP,
I see your point, however, you are confusing ideology with tone. Marshall could campaign as a staunch pro-lifer while using the right tone and by your admission he would resonate with most voters in this state.
If social issues are wrapped in a winsome package then they are a net positive. Your last statement seems to back me up on that.
Posted by: Steven Osborne | January 01, 2010 at 05:54 PM
"fit the district" is the mentality that got us into where we were. Thats what Tom Davis preached in 2007 when he had his wife and other candidates move to the center and they ended up getting stomped. You win elections by talking about what you believe in and effectively explaining to people why your way would help their every day lives the best. If you can do that, you win. Its how we won in 2009.
Posted by: Chris | January 01, 2010 at 06:36 PM
Chris,
If you're actually saying that the same GOP message in NY would win in MS (or vice versa), you're naive.
"Thats what Tom Davis preached in 2007."--Last time I checked, before all the right wingers started crucifying Tom Davis for not being "conservative enough', he defeated a democratic incumbent to become county board chair, then he defeated the democratic incumbent and remained in Congress for 14 years. Thats a pretty successful career by anyone's standards. And whether or not he is as right wing as you want him to be, his being a republican member of the house added to the GOP majority in the House that ushered in Speaker Gingrich. It doesn't matter how "conservative" you are in the House, it only matters what party you are a member of. Whether or not it was Tom Davis or Bob Marshall, it still allowed the GOP to control the House.
Jeanmarie lost because of a campaign blunder that Chap Petersen capitalized on, as he should have. Check your facts. 2007 was a tough year for all the GOP and thats not Davis' fault, blame Bush if anyone. Check into his record as chair of the NRCC, he had record breaking win levels for all GOP candidates across the country because of his so called ineffective "fitting the district' style of campaigning.
"explaining to people why your way would help their every day lives"--no social issue pays my bills. How does that help 'my' everyday life?
Where I will fault Davis is on his whole non compete agreement with the Connolly Machine. It was selfish of him to do that and only hurt other republicans.
But you are foolish to fault his style of campaigning that has proven to be a winner over and over again.
And believe it or not, McDonnell followed that style. He preached what people wanted to hear and won. He didnt go to a business luncheon and start preaching about abortion. He talked jobs, transportation, and economy. Period.
Posted by: Local GOP | January 01, 2010 at 07:01 PM
Tom Davis? A moderate from Massachusetts? Naw, I don't think so.
The thought of George Allen returning to the ring and kicking Webb's ass? Sweet!
It's pretty simple. Conservatism is about the Constitution and Jeffersonian principles. And getting government out of people's lives. That spells George Allen.
Posted by: doc | January 02, 2010 at 01:24 PM
....and George Allen spells ma#@cca, and ma#@cca spells racism, and racism spells attack ads, and attack ads spells the re-election of Senator Webb :( sorry, but it will happen.....again. Bob Marshall is too old, and too right wing (or atleast talks too much about being too right wing), plus my suspicion is that he isnt very good at fundraising on a state wide level. Whittman or Davis is the way to go. Frankly these times are too important to send someone to the Hill who doesnt know the procedures or how it works, or federal issues. Which is why we need a current or former member of Congress to go to the Senate so there isnt a handicap.
Posted by: local gop | January 02, 2010 at 02:07 PM