Herman Cain has moved into the top three . . . clearly gaining on Perry's stumbles both with his record and his mouth. Romney is steady . . . the media can clamor for Christie all they won't it won't matter. The race is to be won the right, that is where the majority of voters are and where these is flux right now. FoxNews poll:
Romney: 23%
Perry: 19%
Cain: 17%
In addition, there is a tumbling down of both Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul. Paul, I think, was getting a serious look by Tea Party conservatives who don't necessarily share all of his values but have been put off by his foreign policy positions and taken by Mr. Cain's debate performances. Bachmann should have known better, she jumped in the polls thanks to Tim Pawlenty swinging at her wildly, and she tried the same trick on Perry and made to look ridiculous. Two things stand out . . . both Romney and Cain have been very steady in their approach and their messages. They haven't wavered, defended what they have done, and kept on it. Perry and Bachmann, the previous two conservative saviors that were suppose to take down Mitt Romney, have not been so steady.
This is not to say that Rick Perry can't recover. Perry has been in this game a long time, and he just needs to stop looking so dear-in-a-headlight when his opponents attack him and take him off script. Apparently he never really had any prep in his career, and it shows. Perry needs coaching on getting out what he wants to say coherently. This nomination is still his for the taking if he can get the train back on the tracks. But its a small window . . . conservatives are starting to fall for Cain and because he has no political record, he isn't forced to defend himself. Romney has figured out how to talk back the Romneycare in Massachusetts, and Perry needs to do it too.
Spiker nails it. Not much else I could add here, he pretty well wipes the floor with Oleszek and her campaign spin. All I'm going to add is that I must steal the video he put up:
There is something brewing in this Republican primary right now . . . the natives are restless. Mainstream candidate after mainstream candidate seem to failing them, nobody is happy with what has been presented to them. First there is the endurance of Mitt Romney, who is becoming a much more resilient campaigner than he was four years ago. Then there is Michele Bachmann, a tireless fighter who has begun to crumble when specifics are requested of her rhetoric. Then comes Rick Perry, who hasn't fallen because of bad debate performances with the base more than because of substantive positions on immigration. Perry's immigration beliefs create and "yeah, but" comparison with Mitt Romney's health care record. Its a correlation that doesn't do him well.
The Florida Presidency 5 straw poll, along with the Ames poll, shows that the base is looking for someone to wow them, and they really don't care who it is. Whether a three-term congresswomen from a small town in Minnesota or a former business executive and radio show host from Georgia. There is a longing out there, and its one the pundits and media are missing. While the elites are pining for a Christie or a Daniels, the conservative base is pining for - really - a Palin. Just not that Palin. The base is looking for a fighter, someone who isn't apologizing for his/her beliefs, and someone who projects a message.
These debates, if they continue as they have, will end up hurting both Romney and Perry. The constant focus on them and their feuds are angering the base. Its becoming a problem for both of them. Then there is the "anyone but Romney" movement that clearly - based on the Florida poll - has the numbers but just does not have the candidate right now. And while the media fixates on the more moderate, "electable" candidates - its the more consistant conservative one that the base is looking for and the one that will get the nomination.
Which brings me to the curious case of Herman Cain. He is a perplexing candidate because he doesn't have a "Gov", "Rep," or "Sen" prefix that so many Americans find comfort in. If Cain would have won the Georgia Senate race in 2004, he would have been a front-runner. But we look with comfort on candidates that have that nice title. Cain, of all the existing candidates, has the greatest opportunity to capture this feeling before the base "settles" for someone, but he will need to make the case for so many of us to make that leap of faith. Is it a disqualifer not to be someone who writes and votes on legislation - whether its good or bad? Is it a disqualifer to not have run a state? I don't know, I'm not the person who decides that but to win this nomination, Cain would need to do some serious work to make Americans to take that leap of faith, but every day Romney and Perry snipe at each other, every day that no candidate with one of those titles steps up, perhaps there will be an opening for the businessman Cain. I don't envision anyone other than possibly Jim DeMint that could now come in from the right to take this. Its now or never for someone like Cain. The next few months will be critical before Iowa and before conservatives are forced to "settle" once again.
In Virginia, there is a very clear line dividing what local government can do and what state governments can do . . . its called the Dillon Rule. But I must say, its perplexing that Janet Oleszek's campaign has yet to fully prep her on this . . . or as someone who has been active for so long in local politics, she doesn't know this herself.
So here I was this afternoon, perplexed at why Democrat progressives feel the need to shove her down our throats cycle after cycle watching her debate John Cook. The first mistake Oleszek made was claiming that libraries are closed on Sundays and John Cook should be ashamed for taking this away from the kids and the seniors, et al. The usual Maude Flanders routine from Oleszek. But a quick look at the Fairfax County website shows that, yes, there are reduced hours but there ARE libraries open on Sundays: Centreville, Chantilly, City of Fairfax, George Mason Regional, Pohick (IN BURKE!), Reston Regional, Sherwood, Tysons-Pimmet, and the Virginia Room. Oops. So again, entirely unprepared and for someone that claims her local knowledge is a strength she didn't even know some of the libraries in the district are open on Sundays.
Second, and more telling, was Oleszek's attack on John over roads. The question from the audience was about what we can do to fix the tall grass, uncut grass, dead trees, and such on the median strips across the district. Janet attacked John for being, essentially, a do-nothing supervisor on the issue. John responded, correctly, that Janet was dead wrong because the STATE controls all roads in Virginia, not the county, and thus it is up to VDOT to clear the roads. And this was right after Oleszek had attacked John's proposal for local control of roads - so which is it? John's point for local control of local road is basically that all of the money we could use for things like beautification are sent downstate and most of it does not come back. By making our roads local, the county gets to control these things, just as it should be. But that would take an act from the General Assembly (I believe). And it should be noted that both Arlington and Henrico Counties do this, with much success.
So this is where it gets interesting. Oleszek's campaign manager tweeted that this was a huge error on John's part because the Sheriff's office has allowed inmates in the county jail to come out and clear the roads, and that the Board cut that off. Technically correct, but there are three responses to that. First, that is to the total discretion of the Sheriff, Democrat Stan Berry, as to what can be done with inmates. Second, the budget that cut those services was approved 7-3, with Cook being a dissenter, all seven Democrats voting yes. Third, the very point NLS points to just proves John correct . . . what the hell are we doing relying on inmates to clean our roads to begin with? If we had local control, which Janet doesn't want (or does, I can't figure it out, I guess it depends on how to attack John), we would be able to handle these issues seamlessly. So just to recap - John wants local control for local roads so we can keep all the money in Braddock, something with which both Bob McDonnell and Sean Connaughton seemed inclined to do. Simple. That means whether its potholes or debris, it can be handled easily and locally. Janet is for . . . clearing our roads through action as a supervisor, but can't because its a state issue, but still wants it done. But then she doesn't want local control for local roads because . . . um . . . because John is for it? My head is hurting . . .
Its funny to watch Janet attack John on what the Board has done because everything is run by the Democrats and Sharon Bulova, who despite Janet bragging was endorsing her, did everything in her power to make sure she wasn't the nominee and has only come to her rescue because she has too.
Another terrible performance from a terrible candidate. I feel bad because I think she's a nice lady who really does love her community . . . but she just is not competent enough. She isn't. She doesn't know the difference between local and state pension systems; local and state responsibilities for transportation. Retirement and roads, two of the KEY issues facing Fairfax County, and Janet Oleszek just doesn't know the issues. Why people keep convincing her to run is beyond me. There was a point where Janet stood up to offer a rebuttal to John (I can't remember what it was) and she rambled on incoherently until she was out of time, stopped mid-sentence, and then sat down without even making her point. I mean, I had to look down at times I just couldn't watch it.
John Cook, on the other hand, was cool and confident. He shrugged off attacks, spoke clearly about the need for strong neighborhoods that are his boss, not, as he put it, that the supervisor would be the "dictator" of the district. He spoke about his unparalleled outreach and imput from the community to his office, centering around his Citizens Governance Initiative that is unprecedented in reaching out to local community leaders and groups. This is an even starker contrast that Janet's campaign against Ken Cuccinelli because she could lean on the terrible mood of the country towards Republicans. She has none of that.
So expect the line of attack from the Dems is that John supports closing libraries and against road beautification. When in reality, libraries are open but the budget writing wrest solely with the super-majority Democrat Board of Supervisors; and that John's proposal for local control of local roads would be local government can clean and clear roads and median strips (along with pot hole repair, et al).
John Cook just released a three point platform for strengthening communities . . . where is Janet's plan? This is, again, an election abotu competence and who knows and can best represent the interests of the neighborhoods on the Board of Supervisors. Cook knows these folks and is leading . . . Janet is desperately throwing mud to try and keep up.
This was sort of a slow-build for me. I was mostly watching this debate, but sneaking over now and then to see the Nats finish off their four game sweep of the Phillies so I sort of missed the part where Texas Gov. Rick Perry said people who don't support giving in-state tuition to illegals as having no heart.
Now look, I've been clear of my admiration of Gov. Perry, and I have even read his book (though not Romneys'). I even understand why he did what he did . . . he's the governor of a state with a huge illegal problem in an era where the federal government, controlled by either party, has failed to protect said state's boarders. Perhaps no other governor, not even Arizona or New Mexico, has to deal with what Perry has had to deal with. And he has not done a particularly good job of explaining that, but I think most Republicans respect that. I even kind of buy-in to his argument that in giving in-state tuition to children of illegals means that these kids will get a piece of America, will become responsible citizens who become party of the economy and not a barnacle on the hull of the welfare state. But to say that if you disagree with him you have no soul? Excuse me? I believe Rick Perry to be a conservative . . . I've been wanting him to run for president for awhile . . . but he just about lost me with that. This isn't like the stupid Gardisal issue that was just a way for lower-tier candidates to take swipes at him. Immigration and all the issues that come form it are in a crisis right now, and for Perry to essentially cow-tow the liberal line on this is pretty disgusting.
I'm not trying to be like I was last time, hop-scotching from candidate to candidate based on what I was feeling at the time. But Perry's debate performances and his stance on immigration has become troubling - or more accurately, his reaction to criticism is troubling. Perry says that Romney is Obama-lite on health care, but Perry is essentially Obama-lite on immigration - and frankly I believe Romney's answers with health care better than Perry's on immigration.
I haven't formally endorsed Perry, but I've been pretty clear that I've been supporting the guy. I'm walking it back for now without showing my hand about who has impressed me. But Perry, who is a good conservative, needs to figure this out. He's a great campaigner, a good conservative, and a good governor . . . but these debate performances have just been horrid and instead of just saying why he did what he did, he is basically casting aspersions on many of us who do have hearts but also feel that giving in-state tuition to illegals is a really terrible idea. He's been a governor for a long time, people understand there might be some clunkers in there, but to dismiss conservatives like that? It makes me really re-think if Perry is the guy I thought he was and if he would be the president I would hope he would be.
Once again, someone else is swooping in trying to save the incompetent Janet Oleszek from torpedoing her own campaign, this time for Braddock supervisor. A key issue in the campaign has been the county's pension system - one in which Sharon "We Will Do It Next Year" Bulova says Cook doesn't understand. Here is her press release in helping to prop up Oleszek:
"John continues to misunderstand how Fairfax County maintains the stability of its pension funds", Chairman Bulova said. We are following the guidance of our financial experts with whom I work every day and maintain a level of funding that helps to protect our retirees and current employees from being hurt by market fluctuations. His claim of being the one on the board to stand up is right, but he is standing up against good financial advice and the expertise on the boards of trustees of all three pension funds.
"I think Sharon Bulova has been doing an excellent job managing an extremely complex budget", Janet Oleszek said. "It's actually laughable that John tried to compare himself to Sharon at one time during the debate, while attacking her record of fiscal leadership in another part of the debate. If John wants to make this election a referendum on Sharon's leadership of Fairfax County then I accept."
OK . . . so let's now address the facts. First off, deficits do exist . . . Sharon's management style on the Board is to avoid controversy at all possibility, to give supervisors the very least amount of time to deal with controversial subjects . . . her positions on Covanta and Dulles Rail are perfect examples of how the Bulova-led Board has done whatever they could to avoid large public debate on important issues. There is brewing consternation on her left as well as her right. Sharon Bulova just wants to get through the year, year by year budgeting with absolutely no plans for the future. Which is probably why she thinks that the pension system is fine because they managed to make it fine this year . . . without regard to the future. Don't believe me? Well . . . let's go to the TAPE! From an actual Board meeting, Sharon had no idea there were problems with the pension even when told by county staff. As someone who ran on experience, and who has been on the Board for over 20 years, its embarrassing to every voter in the county that the Chairman doesn't know the very basic facts of the problems in our pension system.
Now let's ciricle back as to why Sharon, with no doubt a gun to her head, decided to release a press release for a candidate she did everything in her power to defeat in the Democratic primary. Its because at the first debate, declared a "BIG WIN" by Oleszek campaign flaks, was actually a disaster. I was able to get ahold of the debate and it was the usual Janet . . . over-coached, rambling, talking points Janet who is unable to expand past what she was coached on. But the most interesting part is at the end, where independent candidate Carey Campbell says that there is no pension shortfall, etc.
Then Janet gets up and starts talking . . . and not making any sense. Why? Because she was talking about the STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM!!! She didn't even know the difference between the county and state pensions. Really? REALLY? Which is why her campaign chairman shut the debate down after 65 minutes rather than the entire 90 minutes agreed too. One of the most basic aspects of being a supervisor is - hello! - understanding what is in the budget!
THIS is why Sharon tried circling the wagons around Janet, because she had too. Remember, Braddock is her old district for 20 years, so John's very existence on the Board is a constant embarrassment to her. Janet's campaign is falling apart at the seems . . . they are pushing that he's a communist to conservatives and that he's a "teapublican" to Democrats. They attack him on the pensions when neither one of them apparently know what the hell they are talking about. Her campaign chairman blogged about how in this debate, Janet "hammer home her points." He then went on about complaining about the venue, the microphones, the people there, that John attacked Pat Herrity, and somehow trying to prop Campbell up as a conservative alternative to John. In a long blog post, there was NOTHING on there about anything John or Janet said, no quotes, nothing. It was one huge head fake, hoping that people would by this and not ask why she didn't know the difference between the state and county pensions. THEY ARE DESPERATE. Janet, Sharon, Ben - none of them realized how well John has reached out to the entire district. He has created a citizens advisory board on the budget to solicit ideas on budget reform from the community. He comes from the HOA world, so people know and respect him for his work in a non-partisan manner. All Oleszek is is partisanship, as is her blogger/chairman. Democrats, until now, have really underestimated how well John has done at reaching out to his civic groups, HOAs, and other community organizations to build his base. Of all the districts in Fairfax, Braddock is the most "practical." Sharon proved that, which is why despite this press release she understood what a disaster Janet is and why she tried so hard to get Chris Wade to be the nominee.
Look folks, this is about competence. John Cook understands the problems facing the county, Janet just wants to throw mud. John has a long-term concern about the future of the county, Sharon does not. If you need any more proof as to how well Cook has grasped the county issues in just two years (as opposed to Sharon's 20), look at what he has to say in his press release:
Fairfax,Virginia - Braddock District Supervisor John C. Cook today issued a statement about the underfunded nature of Fairfax County's retirement systems that take care of Fairfax County police, firefighters, and county employees at retirement. The retirement systems have recently taken a hit due to the downturn in the economy, and Supervisor Cook is leading the fight on the Board of Supervisors to take a serious look at the issue and maintain the county's commitment to its employees.
"Recently, my campaign opponent and her partisan allies have criticized my commitment to meeting the challenge of reforming the County's retirement plans so they are funded properly," said Supervisor Cook. "They claim everything is fine. However, the County's own professional financial staff disagrees, and the Board of Supervisors is spending $120,000 for a consultant study to recommend changes to the plans."
Fairfax County maintains three retirement funds: one for police, one for firefighters, and one for general employees. Each of the county's three funds has taken serious losses in recent years due to a weakened economy. In 2005, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) showed the Fairfax County Employees' Retirement System was funded at 84.2 percent. In the most recent report available on the County's website (http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/retirement/) liabilities outpace assets by more than $900 million, equating to a funding ratio of just 73.6 percent. A similar drop can be seen in both the Police, 91.5 percent in 2005 to 81.7 percent, and Uniformed, 90.0 percent in 2005 to 79.5 percent, Retirement Systems. Taken together, the County must address a deficit of more than $1.4 billion dollars.
To try to stem these losses, in the last two budget cycles the Board of Supervisors spent an additional $35 million to prop up these pension plans. This additional spending outpaced all cuts to parks and libraries combined over the last two years. Despite this, the funding gap remains. While this gap could be closed as a result of future investment returns, and our funds are among the best managed in the country, with retirees living longer some adjustment in the funding mechanism is likely needed.
The Board of Supervisors has followed Supervisor Cook's leadership on this issue. In response to his motion, Budget Guidance for Fiscal Year 2011 identified the need for a "continued review of the County's retirement policies and programs." And last year the Board commissioned a study, expected to cost approximately $120,000, to study our retirement plans and consider reforms. Results and recommendations are expected to come back this Fall. "I doubt the Board is spending this much tax money to study the retirement system because everything is ok. Obviously the Board and County staff recognize that we need to address the issue," commented Cook.
Supervisor Cook believes once the consultant's study is released, the Board should form a commission including the public and private sector, county management and county employees, to consider options.
"You can't wish away a challenge like this," stated Cook. "But if we deal with it today, it will be a lot easier than waiting ten years when the problem becomes a crisis.
You can't wish away a challenge like this, Sharon and Janet. No matter how much partisan mud you throw through your blogger chairman and their far lefty allies. The proof is in the pudding - Cook has support from business, labor, and environmentalists. Every aspect of public interest in Fairfax county understand that even if they don't agree with John, they see him as a knowledgeable leader rather than someone, as the DCPost memorably said, "is embarrassingly short of substance." Look at the money - John has $34,754 on hand right now; while Oleszek only has $8,868. Where is Chap Petersen's money?
Folks, its a slam dunk. This election is about competence, about who can handle the job of being a supervisor in a county of over a million people and a budget the size and complexity of some small states. Janet is simply in over her head which is why so many Democrats and Independents are privately sliding over to John Cook. Feeding lies to out-of-county conservative bloggers, traditional Democratic interest groups backing Cook, no money being raised, stopping debates before they are over . . . all the signs of a desperate campaign that knows its in trouble and are swinging wildly.
Again, let the hollowed pages of The Washington Post ring out over and over:
District 37 : There's not much to choose from here. Incumbent Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II is a highly intelligent and capable Republican whose doctrinaire, at times obstructionist, views on taxes and social issues have alienated his own party's more moderate leadership in the Senate. While he finally did vote this year for a bill to provide new roads for Northern Virginia, it was only after repeatedly helping to block better ones. Democrat Janet Oleszek is a Fairfax County School Board member who has run a lackluster campaign, at times embarrassingly short on substance. The district, in Fairfax County, deserves better choices; we make no endorsement.
(Note: This is once again part of my peace-pipe work with Flanary, who I dearly hope destroys Dave Marsden in two months and I am starting to feel pretty good about those chances)
The cash-on hand reports have been posted on VPAP and its good news so far for Jason Flanary as he attempts to take down Sen. Dave Marsden
Dave Marsden: $52,401
Jason Flanary: $36,430
Couple of things to note. First, Marsden had no primary while Flanary did. Second, Marsden is a firmly entrenched soldier in the Gerry Connolly machine, so its impressive that Flanary is staying in bounds with him in terms of money. Flanary also showed in the primary his ability to win votes on a door-to-door basis. He's young, energetic, with a good resume and clearly can convince folks to vote for him. Marsden is largely unaccomplished in his time in both houses of the Assembly. This is Ken Cuccinelli's old district so there are plenty of votes out there to be had and I think Flanary just needs to keep pace with Marsden and let his feet do the rest against a notoriously weak campaigner.
Mitt Romney, stylistically, looked and sounded great. He had some meat on the bones in his answers, and pushed Perry hard. Perry can handle himself okay, but he was clearly tiring of being ganged up on by people who won't have a chance of being president. The Texas governor needs to find his voice more on this issue of the HPV vaccine, but more-so the immigration issue.
So here is my thought of HPV - its an honest mistake. As I recall, Bill Bolling was pushing for something similar, as were other states. My wife, who is pretty a-political, was annoyed with the way Bachmann and Satorum was going after Perry. Her thought was that you really can't be that mad at Perry for trying to prevent cirvical cancer, however heavy-handed he was. Perry needs to push back harder and come up with a zinger, because there was a simple opt-out - and some reading I did on this and part of the reason Perry did this was to get the vaccine on Texas Vaccines for Children program, which I think meant families wouldn't have to pay for it. But it was still a giant mistake, and I'm not sure how many times Perry has to admit that before everyone just calms down. He needs to nip this in the bud.
On the rostrum, Romney played it best. He left it alone, let the anklebiters cut him up for him . . . Santorum has the political cred with social conservatives and was most effective. Bachmann, for me, came off as shrill. I believe she undercut her maternal outrage by bringing up the supposed crony capitalism behind the move, accusing Perry of issuing this order to enrich his lobbyist buddy for Merck. Its a nasty slime from Bachmann, and I lost a ton of respect for her by leveling this charge. My disgust is largely due to Bachmann's own funny timing of her outrage that coincides with her growing irrelevance in the race thanks to Perry. But Bachmann herself is pushing the limits of believability too, as she is pushing debunked science that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation, something that has upset parents of special needs. In addition, she apparently stayed quiet in Minnesota so her outrage seems a bit selective. In a way, I am glad this issue is out there because its best that Perry learn to deal with it from friendly fire to test him with what the Chicago mob wants to do with him. I can believe Santourm's outrage much more than Bachmann - who is so blatantly grasping at straws just so she can try and climb back into this. Too me, she looked desperate last night and its clear Perry makes her essentially irrelevant.
The pile-on continued for Perry on immigration. Look, he is right - we simply cannot argue with a straight fact that building a fence from Galveston to San Diego is in any way practical. What he didn't do is properly communicate how difficult his job in Texas is concerning this issue. While the Feds sit around and do nothing about illegal immigration in any way, he's stuck with the consequences - crime, poverty, and all that comes with it. He can make a compelling case that might at least make people understand the need for his support of in-state tuition for illegals. Unlike other states like, oh say, Massachusetts, you can look tough on this issue because you don't have to deal with it. What Perry is stumbling over himself to say is that we need to close the boarder and have a real conversation about what to do with the people that are here now. Its weird that Perry, the hardliner supposedly, is the one taking the more "nuanced" approach to this issue. He needs to frame this as close the boarder and win their hearts and minds afterwards. If nothing is done, then we have a permanent class of immigrants uneducated, uncaring about this country, and one that will become a permanent welfare class. Now, I'm not sure I even buy that line of thinking but if your governor of Texas you can use this issue to make the rest of the folks on that dias anklebiters and look like a nuanced leader.
As for the debate itself, it was better than the last CNN affair - but really Fox News has this down. But its starting to get ridiculous with how many people who won't be the nominee are allowed up there. Huntsman embarrassed himself several times while Santorum has been given enough time to get his message out and his numbers haven't moved one bit. They need to go. Gingrich is fun at these, and looks like he is having fun, and he does add real substance. But his numbers aren't moving either. Add Herman Cain - who I adore - to that list. If I ran the debate I would limit participation to Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul. They are the only ones constantly polling well in the big states and the only ones with a real following. This need for cable channels to be "fair" is pretty ridiculous - everyone knows who the big dogs are, and the others should have to work to get into these debate. You should be allowed in just because your a candidate.
Here are my very basic thoughts:
I used to think that a unity ticket of Perry-Romney or Romney-Perry was going to happen, but now I'm not so sure. Some think Marco Rubio is a lock, but I had a crazy thought after this debate: what about Newt Gingrich for VP? He's smart, a fantastic debater, and a fearless attack dog. Its almost as if Gingrich's talents match better with being VP rather than Prez.
Ron Paul is the bravest politician in America, he is simply fearless no matter how crazy he might get.
Herman Cain better be in the next GOP cabinet.
I do love Rick Santorum, but he's going nowhere.
Jon Huntsman absolutely embraced himself last night. I was thinking perhaps he could be secretary of state, but I'm not sure he won't be anything more than a punchline after last night.
Michele Bachmann is getting desperate, and I'm not sure Republicans want to see her using Democrat talking points in attacking Rick Perry.
Rick Perry really needs to go to debate school. His prepared stuff was good, but he needs to work harder at knowing what is coming and how to deal with it. Your in the pros, now.
Recent Comments