Corey Stewart pulls no punches when talking about George Allen's record as a senator today on NewsChannel 8. Stewart is banking on what I've been talking about for awhile now, that Allen's record as a senator wasn't outstanding and if had been he would have been reelected. People are so mad about the Maccaca nonsense that they forgot that there were very real vulnerabilities for Allen under the surface and Maccaca was just a moment that allowed people to reevaluate him. 2010 proved there is new blood rising in the party and there is no reason to turn back to the years that cost us power so soon after we got it back.
UPDATE: Stewart isn't backing off his assertion of Allen even after Bob McDonnell (sort of) leapt to Allen's defense. I mean, the quote from McDonnell is kind of funny because in defending Allen it almost proves Corey's point:
I served with him in the legislature when he was governor. He was the most dynamic governor of the modern age. I think he was an exceptional governor. He was a very good senator."
This is basically what Stewart was saying anyways . . . great governor, "meh" senator. Exceptional versus good. I mean, even Allen seems to assert this too. Ever since he lost, he's insisted on being called Gov. Allen instead of Sen. Allen, as if he wanted people to remember him as the former and not the latter. Anyways, here is what Stewart said today after the Post contacted him about McDonnell's comment:
"They're old friends,'' Stewart said. "George Allen has a lot of old friends. It's not Bob McDonnell who chooses the next senator from Virginia. It's the electorate. ... And they have already decided Allen had a mediocre term as senator. He needs to move on."
Look, I know a lot of people are going to be put off by this, but it reminds me of what Keith Fimian had to do when Pat Herrity jumped in. Everyone and their moms who were elected officials immediatly supported Pat, which is fine. But don't be surprised when the other person in that race fights back and throws some elbows. They have too. I can already see certain folks out there bemoaning Stewart for this comment against McDonnell when he's essentially right. The last time George Allen was a US senator, he was fired from that job. But if he is going to run, and I think he is, he needs to assert himself and not let everyone pile on and take all of his oxygen. He has to fight, becasue in as much as the fix can be in in this race, it is. The reason plainly that Bob Marshall supports a primary this time around was because he was convinced if he ran they would steal it from him. Most people who think they run the Republican Party here want George Allen to be the nominee. So Stewart needs to fight those off and I think he is.
Allen's defeat in 2006 had absolutely nothing to do with his record as a Senator.
Posted by: VA Blogger | November 30, 2010 at 08:49 AM
Really? Nothing to do whatsoever? Not on his votes on the war, on spending? I seem to recall Webb and most Democrats talking a lot in 2006 about the reckless spending and the war . . . stuff Allen voted for.
But your right, it had nothing to do with his record.
Posted by: Chirs | November 30, 2010 at 10:20 AM
The arguments against the war weren't based on spending, they were based on opposition to Bush's foreign policy. Allen lost by only 10,000 votes after running one of the worst crisis management efforts Virginia has seen. Before "Macaca", he was due to coast to re-election and be a top contender for President. Yes, it had absolutely nothing to do with his record.
I'm not defending his record, either. But any claim that he faced some sort of backlash in 2006 due to any perceived lack of fiscal conservatism is blatantly false historical revisionism.
Posted by: VA Blogger | November 30, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Got to agree with VAB here.
Posted by: Loudoun Insider | November 30, 2010 at 11:38 AM
I guess we will agree to disagree. Maccaca certainly played a huge factor, but Allen has all kinds of weaknesses and it exposed them. I maintain he cannot win the NOVA-Richmond-Hampton corridor because a) many of those voters weren't here when he was governor, and b) his projected image of himself is not something they are looking for.
But to say maccaca is the only reason he lost to me is a bit of an insult to the voters. And I wasn't saying the issues of spending and the war weren't together, they were different issues running parallel. But I recall handing out sample ballots that morning on 2006 and everyone was talking about Iraq. His record on these issues did matter, and Webb ran a pretty aggressive anti-war campaign.
Posted by: Chirs | November 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM
In that sense, I suppose you're right. Even with "macaca", Alvin Greene would not have defeated Allen.
Yes, the Iraq War was a huge issue in the 2006 elections, as it was across the country. But Virginia was (and still is) a center-right state, and the majority of voters supported the Iraq War effort, even in 2006. In Jim Webb they had a credible "strong on defense" alternative, in addition to someone who brought out the Dem base. That was enough to give Webb a very narrow victory after Allen's mistake.
Allen supported the Iraq War, but was never an identifiable leader on the issue, because he doesn't have the foreign policy or military experience to pull it off. He was "punished" for that vote, to the extent that he was, for simply being a Republican while a Republican in the White House was executing an unpopular war.
My point is this: in every election there are many factors at work. The most important factors in 2006 was "macaca" and the Dem-favored political environment. A rather trivial factor was Allen's Senate record. Corey Stewart's take on Allen is a matter of opinion, but even if you agree with him, it's foolish to say or think that Allen's alleged "mediocre record" contributed at all to his defeat.
Posted by: VA Blogger | November 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM
I have no problems if Stewart wants to chart a different course than Allen and wants to disagree with votes Allen took. That's fine.
Calling him mediocre and his term mediocre is unnecessary.
Fimian's temper tantrum when Herrity entered the race didn't win him the primary. Painting Herrity as a tax hiker did. That was based on votes Herrity took and thus it was legitimate, even if it wasn't accurate.
All I want is a primary that doesn't turn into a bloody fight between Republicans. I think it damages Corey long term, which I'd rather not see, and I think it damages the party because it forces us into another one of these contentious insider/outsider nonsense feuds.
Posted by: Brian W. Schoeneman | November 30, 2010 at 07:01 PM
Allen can take his cowboy boots, chew, and go back to 1989... its over for him... won't work in NVA, nor should it! Great Gov., bad Senator.
Posted by: Colts Fan! | November 30, 2010 at 08:34 PM
Is it too late for Herrity to enter this race?
Posted by: Barbara Hanford | November 30, 2010 at 08:54 PM
He jumped in to the VA-11 race around Christmas last year. Give him a few weeks, he's probably still working behind the scenes to garner 40-50 endorsements from prominent Republican insiders for his website when he announces in early January.
Posted by: Darma Slattery | December 01, 2010 at 09:09 AM
Allen is 1980s-1990s politican who doesn't understand the twentyfirst century
He is a country bumpkin empty suit like GWB and doesn't deserve to be senator
Virginia can do better
Posted by: novamiddleman | December 01, 2010 at 02:26 PM
Unfortunetly Brian, given the dynamic of this potential primary that is what happens. Frankly its naieve to think a primary won't turn out any other way. Really if party unity and lack of bloodshed is what you want, a convention is the best way to go. I personally am all for this because I think every candidate needs to be vetted properly on their views, votes, and ideas and its better done inside a primary then later on when it can hurt more.
Posted by: Chirs | December 01, 2010 at 03:14 PM
I think it's disappointing to see people throwing mud right out of the cage, but it is important to make sure you don't let people define you and thus control the race. Corey is still a good guy that would make a good Senator.
Posted by: local gop | December 01, 2010 at 08:43 PM
There are considerable inexpensive Fendi Bags available. Just enjoy the super shopping experience on our Fendi Outlet. And the high quality Fendi wallets are perfect presents for friends. http://www.discountfendisale.co.uk/
Posted by: fendi | December 01, 2010 at 11:22 PM
I am interested in purchasing a Fendi bag. Please tell me more about this exciting deal.
Posted by: VA Blogger | December 02, 2010 at 12:57 AM
Chris, it's not naive. I may be being idealistic, but I recognize the potential for it happening. I decried it when it happened in the Fimian race, and I'm consistent in my desire to see a primary unmarred by ridiculous mudslinging.
Conventions are no less bloody and divisive.
There's no reason why we can't vet candidates without it turning into personal attacks or characterizations. Like I said, all Corey had to say was that Allen supported a variety of bills that Stewart would not have if he had been in the Senate, and that it's time for some fresh blood. That doesn't knock Allen but still gets his point across.
There are good ways and bad ways to draw comparisons between you and your opponent. Corey is heading in the wrong direction.
Posted by: Brian W. Schoeneman | December 02, 2010 at 08:25 AM
local will probably be excited about those Fend bag deals, too.
Posted by: Portia S | December 03, 2010 at 12:18 AM
We've got enough mediocrity to go around several times over in this state. Mr. Stewart may aspire to mediocrity, but he has a long climb to get there. I guess by criticizing someone who was a Senator, the hope is that people might start thinking that the critic is US Senate material. Seems like a very long shot in this situation. Around these parts, we're all critics of politicians, but that doesn't make us all worthy to hold office.
Posted by: NoVA Scout | December 04, 2010 at 12:04 AM