MASON CONSERVATIVE

Perry and McDonnell: A Sign Of Things To Come?

Email from Pat Mullins just came out that Texas Gov. (and GOP front-runner) Rick Perry will be headlining the RVP grassroots luncheon on September 14th in Richmond.  Mullins frames Virginia as a battleground state and compares Perry to McDonnell, governors who have balanced the books without hitting the taxpayers up.

McDonnell is on the veep short list, and he clearly wants the job.  Folks I've talked too who know these things are telling me that McDonnell would very much like to be on the GOP ticket come November 2012.  I have argued with some of my friends about this and at first I wasn't sure how smart it would be . . . McDonnell can be kind of dull and mechanical on the stump.  But if Perry (or Romney or Bachmann or whoever) truly wants to frame the GOP message on "jobs, jobs, jobs" why not choose the originator?  McDonnell was way out in front on this issue back in 2008/9 - I remember going to his kick off at the Annandale fire station and seeing "Bob's for Jobs" signs everywhere, before the Tea Party and before every other GOP candidate ran on the issue.  He's also a winner - having never lost a race, and puts a key state Obama won back in play.  He would be a perfect balance especiallyu for Perry, who can be bombastic and flamboyant, hardly adjectives associated with McDonnell.  But most importantly, McDonnell's job performance would fold nicely into the narrative Perry is trying to run on and having two governors who have job creation in their states as the GOP ticket bolsters the reason why Republicans want voters to vote for them.  Perry mentored McDonnell at the RGA as well (setting him up as his succesor), and in the past has often brought McDonnell's name up when talking about state job creation.  It would be a nice balance  The only baggage McDonnell would have is that we would probably have to live through the thesis problem again - however they simply need to handle it the exact same way they did in 2009 and they should clear it. 

Perry-McDonnell, we could see it folks.  And the first real sign of it could happen in two weeks.

I'm Officially On The Twitter!

Follow me, I'll follow you!  I'm still not sure what the hell I'm doing but my wife is walking me through it.

twitter.com/ChrisBeer4

Thoughts On 2011 Primaries

Candidates with money:  What do Jeff Frederick, Miller Baker, Jason Flanary, and Barbara Favola all have in common?  Access to money and an ability to fundraise competitively.  They all got money in different ways, but they got it.  The only candidate to break this trend was John Stirrup, but he lost for other reasons.  Candidates like Scott Martin and Tito Munoz tried to run shoe-string campaigns and could never do more than activate their core supporters.  As always, money talks but it’s also how you spend your money.  All four campaigns showed that spending wisely ensure victory.

There is going negative, and then there is going negative.  John Stirrup and Tito Munoz were running against candidates that did have some negative vulnerability based on some of the past.  Jeff Frederick is not beloved across the Republican Party and his time as RPV chairman was controversial.  Dick Black angers as many Republicans as he makes happy, and was defeated for reelection for a reason back in 2005.  Instead of playing it smart and running negative mailers that were more nuanced in their criticism, they swung wildly.  Munoz’s campaign was clearly taken over by many of George Allen’s political hands, and there is a story there.  Munoz was all over the place and failed to stay on his basic message as to why he should be elected.  He had a tremendous story to tell about himself and what his election would mean for Virginia and the party as it reaches out to the Hispanic community, one that is fertile ground for the GOP.  Stirrup found an innocuous issue that nobody really cared about and they went crazy, comparing Black to Pelosi and Obama.  Ridiculous.  Compare that to Jason Flanary, whose negative campaign instead played on a lingering doubt already around Steve Hunt, that he had had his time and did not have a good win-loss record.

What were George Allen and Pat Herrity thinking?  Why would they jump on the Tito Munoz bandwagon?  Neither had anything to gain from the outcome of this race, and if anything Allen’s endorsement energized Frederick even more.  And I still can’t figure the Herrity endorsement out – other than his business allies don’t want Frederick in the senate.  But Herrity has no real pull in that district and was smoked in Prince William County during his primary.  Meanwhile, a guy like Steve Hunt is left hanging after a year earlier he stuck his neck out for Herrity big-time in supporting him and trying to convince conservatives fleeing to Keith Fimian that Pat is pro-life.  Now I get that Flanary was part of Herrity’s operation too; but Steve really stuck by him and didn’t get the same respect back.  As for Allen, I wonder if this is a sign of weakness in his operation.  Could they vulnerable from a challenge out of Prince William – Stewart and Marshall come to mind – once these off-years are over? 

Did Keith Fimian help himself?  Both Miller Baker and Jeff Frederick are in tough but winnable races.  Remember, if the GOP takes back the state senate suddenly congressional redistricting looks a lot different.  Annandale and parts of Woodbridge may suddenly not be in the 11^th anymore while perhaps, as a friend suggested to me, Bull Run is added?  Fimian clearly wants to run for something again – and I think he really wants this congressional seat if he can get it.  And its not unprecedented for a candidate to lose a couple of times before wining – Newt Gingrich is the best example of that, and it took Lou Barletta three tries in PA to beat Paul Kanjorski.  So it’s possible.  But if Frederick and Baker are elected, we will win the State Senate.   

Janet Oleszek is running for office again.  Yes!

The Far Left Captures Braddock And FCDC

Apparently the earthquake wasn't the only thing the vacationing Sharon Bulova missed today.  Janet Oleszek has defeated Chris Wade.

The far-left Chap Petersen wing in Fairfax County has taken over the local Democratic Party and repudiated the "leadership" of Sharon Bulova.  The Connolly Machine backed Wade - Sharon Bulova, Jeff McKay, Dave Marsden, Vivian Watts, Penny Gross - and they all lost tonight.  Its stunning to see the Democrats again voting for a candidate who is simply incapable of being an effective campaigner.  Should I post those awful debate performances again?  Oleszek is going to campaign about left versus right, while John Cook is a candidate who is from the community.

Its amazing.  Sharon Bulova was repudiated in her own district where she represented for twenty years.  Her leadership has consisted of making sure there is as little dissension or open discussion as possible on the Board.  Her leadership is informing supervisors at the very last minute on important votes sot here is the least amount of discussion.  Democrats in Braddock have known Sharon Bulova a long time, and they clearly understand she's been such an underwhelming Chairman they were no longer willing to be pied by her piper. 

And now far-left loon Oleszek, who's campaign style is as subtle and nuances as a cinder block, is what Braddock district (my district) is left with.  She will claim Cook is a crazy tea-partier but the folks know better.  They know he's a local attorney and active community member for years in his HOA.  They see the issues he's running on aren't right versus left - issues like local control of roads, ending wasteful subsidised luxury apartments, transparency and true oversight of the School Board, among many other things.  Go compare their issues pages on their websites.

I suspect we will see a replay of the 2007 senate race only more-so.  Oleszek will attack Cook clumsily, while Cook will just show by his appearance and actions that he is by far the most qualified to hold this position and while Oleszek stutters and stammers through nonsense.  Cook has a similar style to Cuccinelli, Oleszek's last opponent.  He is quick on his feet and incredibly prepared.  She will lash out with her left-wing lunacy and Cook will stand there and just who is really prepared and deserving of this job.

John Cook is from the community, Janet Oleszek is from the far left.  I imagine even moderate Dems can't be happy with this outcome.  We've seen the Oleszek show before and know what an embarrassing disaster it is.  Cook has proven a steady and even hand on the Board, a contrarian at times but certainly not some far right maniac Oleszek will try to paint him.

This is great news for Republicans!  Braddock district is the key to this entire election - both locally and in state races.  Spike Williams, Jason Flanary, and Brian Schoeneman need a very strong Cook showing to help them and vice versa.  The Democrats just cut their nose to spite their face.   

Congrats To Jason Flanary, et al

My ballot this fall will read:  Flanary, Schoeneman, Williams, Cook, and Cooper.  I will enthuisiastically support all of them.

And allow me to eat some crow . . . I can take as good as I give.  Jason Flanary has clearly won and done so impressively and I will do all I can to make sure Dave Marsden is defeated.  He's a sharpe guy who can hopefully raise the money needed and show the sheer energy from the primary to out-work, out-hustle, and out-raise "Ouch, Mr. Speaker."

Its pivot time, the primaries are over.  All factions must come together and remember who the common enemy is.  This goes for the primaries in the 36th, 39th, and the 13th - put it behind us and get over your ego.  Its time to take back the Senate and to take back the Senate, WE MUST ELECT JASON FLANARY TO THE STATE SENATE!  It means we must elect Miller Baker and Dick Black and Tom Garrett and Bill Stanley and Ralph Smith and Caren Merrick and Gerarda Culipher.  Help them, give them time and treasure.  We must take back the State Senate!

Primary Open Thread

Predictions?  News?  I'm busy all day, what are people hearing?

Some themes to follow:

• In Fairfax's Senate 37 and 39, will we see grassroots or money win out?
• In Loudoun do the conservatives like Black and Whitbeck win, or the more "electable conservatives" Stirrup and Minchew. 
• Did Stirrup go too negative in a district that is 73% Loudoun?
• Ramadan or Chase?  Crazy or carzier?
• Downstate, what happens in that 22nd? 
• Does Dave Nutter beat back a tea party challenge?
• On the Dems side, do Fairfax Dem successfully rebel against their Chairman and nominate Oleszek over machine-backed Wade? 
• Do they put Caren Merrick in the Senate by nominating Favola? 
• Do we get the first openly gay state senator in Ol' Virginny?

The Real Story Of Texas Jobs

This notion that the Texas jobs boom is only because of oil and gas, its cheap hourly wages with no health care has been overblown and is a cheap way to try undermine a state that is doing things right to help re-elect an incumbent president who has been doing EVERYTHING wrong.  Conservatives are piling on Obama about going to Martha's Vineyard for vacation . . . not me!  He should stay as long as he wants on vacation . . . he's doing more good not being in Washington.

Anyways, Dallas Fed chief Richard W. Fisher lays out in a speech the real economy that Gov. Rick Perry helped build in the Lone Star State.  I don't agree with everything Fisher says, as he continues to defend the monetary policy of the Fed of keeping the printing press running.  Here are the keys from the Perry website:

Texas Job Growth is Indisputable: “These are the facts. You may select whichever metric you wish. Regardless, it is reasonable to assume Texas has accounted for a significant amount of the nation’s employment growth both over the past 20 years and since the recession officially ended.”

Most new jobs are unrelated to the oil and gas sector: “The most jobs have been created in the educational and health services sector, which accounts for 13.5 percent of Texas’ employment. The second-most jobs have been created in the professional and business services sector, which accounts for 12.5 percent of the Texas workforce. The mining sector, which includes support activities for both mining and oil and gas, employs 2.1 percent (yes, two-point-one percent) of Texas’ workers.”

Most New Jobs Pay Good Wages: “…these jobs are not low-paying jobs. The average weekly wage in the education and health services sector is $790; in the professional and business services sector it is $1,117; and in the mining sector, the average weekly wage is $2,271. Together these three sectors account for 68 percent of the jobs that have been created in Texas in the past two years.”

Texas job gains are a result of pro-growth policies on taxes, spending and regulations: “…people and businesses have been picking up stakes and moving to Texas in significant numbers over a prolonged period… And yet Texas, like all states, is subject to the same monetary policy as all the rest… From this, I draw the conclusion that private sector capital and jobs will go to where taxes and spending and regulatory policy are most conducive to growth.”

To create jobs, Washington must address taxes, spending and regulations: “The Committee of 12 and the president have an awesome task. Essentially, they must reboot our entire system of economic incentives and come forward with an updated tax and spending and regulatory regime that incentivizes businesses to invest in the United States and create jobs for American workers rather than gravitate to foreign shores.”

The Dallas Fed will provide ongoing updates to counteract inaccurate information: “The Dallas Fed will henceforth be providing monthly updates on employment in Texas through our website at www.dallasfed.org. We hope it will be a useful tool for everyone ranging from columnists who write for the New York Times to the pundits who provide commentary for Fox News, as well as serious economists.”

HERE is the full speech.

 

Jason Flanary Continues To Lie

Are we expected to believe that while the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce supported tax increases via HB3202 back in 2007 that its VP for government affairs did not?  Or even if he did not, did he not lobby for it?  Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true.  The Fairfax Chamber of Commerce is a bastion for big government corporatism that knows no party affiliation, at Flanary as VP of government affairs was in the middle of all of this.  How can you say with a straight face that while the chamber DID support the 2007 tax increases he as VICE-PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS somehow did not?  We need to know the truth about Flanary the lobbyist - who seems to have been willing to sell his services to the highest bidder.   Folks, Flanary is a classic big-business Republican, show by his time lobbying for tax increases at the Chamber. 

Secondly, please believe me . . . nobody from the Hunt campaign sent me this info.  Like I said in my previous posts, this information - which was properly noted - was given to me by someone Flanary pissed off by his attacks on Steve.

So we have a choice next Tuesday . . . Steve Hunt, who is the real deal conservative and has been with us, fought with is, and worked with us for nearly a decade at the grassroots level . . . or a political trimmer who has climbed the ranks of the business/political/lobbyist complex in Northern Virginia to get enough "important people" to fund his eventual campaign for whatever he wanted to run for.  Jason Flanary doesn't know the grassroots like Steve Hunt does.  We know Steve Hunt says what he means and acts on it, he is someone who can trust on issues like taxation and transportation.  Do we really want a senator more answerable to the masters of the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce rather than a senator who has come up from the people?

In short, we have a trusted and proven grassroots leader versus a lobbyist candidate who's more indebted to the lobbyist and business interest that oftentimes advocate for tax increases and unelected collects of such taxes.  Its an easy choice.

Steve Hunt for State Senate.

How Bad Is Tito Munoz's Campaign

Look, I've endorsed Jeff Frederick, lets not mistake that.  But I've blogged already about how much I like Tito Munoz and how good a candidate he can be up close.  But I'm really not sure who is in the campaign that can call themselves a real adviser.  Somehow, Jeff Frederick pulled the endorsements of both insurgent Keith Fimian and establishment Tom Davis in the span of 24 hours. 

Munoz told us at a YR meeting a few months back that he liked Jeff and wasn't going to really talk about him.  But then his campaign started flaying around sending out press releases about federal issues that have nothing to do with a state senators job to try and fire up the base, then attacked Bob McDonnell, then released a video about Jeff's ouster as RPV chairman after making clear he wasn't going to do that kind of thing.  Ugh.  Tito should be a candidate that is a breakthrough for Republicans, but he's been taking terrible advise from people I half-wonder if some people in that campaign aren't using it, and him, for their own goals. 

I wonder if George Allen might want to walk back that emphatic endorsement.  And what about that?  The Munoz campaign were touting that like a game-changer and nobody seems to care?  Interesting . . .

Is Ron Paul The 13th Floor Of A Hotel?

Stewart might be on to something . . . with the uncertainty in the GOP field Rep. Paul will have a voice in this nominating process.  I just don't see the math where he can get the nomination, but he's the stubborn on man who just believes in his beliefs I think he will be the last guy to drop out.  I really do like and respect Ron Paul . . . and the guy beat everyone but one person at this straw poll, I think he has a gripe.

 

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook