Breaking Eggs

Jeff Price, Democratic candidate for the House of Delegates, District 24, held a roundtable on education issues with teachers in the Rockbridge/Lexington area. I haven't heard much about the discussion, but Jeff is to be applauded for getting an early start learning about one of the most complex and expensive parts of state government. SOLs, LCI, NCLB... it goes on and on. Kudos to Jeff and the folks who took time to meet with him.

A. Gene Hart is seeking the nomination to challenge Matt Lohr for the House of Delegates, District 26. Hart is a Harrisonburg attorney who graduated from UVA Law School and is a veteran. Hart has just started raising campaign contributions and putting together an organization.

Rumors persist that Democrats will field candidates to challenge Chris Saxman and Steve Landes. Guess potential candidates sense the blue tide rising!

The Sixth District Democratic Committee meets tonight and there is rumor of a potential candidate to challenge Bob Goodlatte in 2010 will speak. The echo chamber has the name of Drew Richardson bouncing off the walls. You'll recall that Drew joined the 2008 nomination battle against Sam Rasoul rather late in the game. He got little traction among party activists, in fact, some of the tactics he and his rookie campaign manager used angered many. Rasoul left the door open to another run... for something. So, if Richardson or someone else announces tonight, it will be a shot across his bow, a warning that he's already had his run at the office.

In a related story, Rick Howell, a former member of the Sixth District Committee, used his pen to smack Sam Rasoul after the fact. Howell, who claims to be a Democrat, worked tirelessly to undermine Rasoul since before he was nominated. I suspect the publication of this half baked commentary on the same day that the committee expects to hear from a candidate is more than just happenstance. It would be very interesting if Rick appeared at the meeting - some on the committee are hinting at a resolution booting him from the party. Bigger gonads than Democrats in the U.S. Senate?

VA-6: reflections on the recent campaign

Rick Howell posted his thoughts on Drew Richardson's exit from the race. While he makes some good points, he unfortunately returns to spitting the bile that characterized most of his commentary on that blog, in a letter to the editor, and in other forums during the brief campaign.

So, a few thoughts from the chicken house on Sam's success and the reasons Drew's campaign never gained traction. But remember Coarse Cracked Corn is 8% protein, 2.5% fat, and 2.75% fiber. Who knows what comes out the other end? You may see this post mostly as litter to spread on the fields before the spring rains.

When the battle began about two months ago, Sam had a big lead, that in hindsight was probably insurmountable. I don't know when Sam began visiting committees and visiting events to which Democrats flock, but at some point we all became aware of his presence. Yes, there were questions about his youth and comments about shallowness on issues. 

But, Sam was everywhere always greeting folks and (importantly) listening to what VA-6 Democrats had on their minds. As he and his campaign matured so did his understanding of a range of issues important to Democrats and residents of the district. While he spoke more frequently and in more depth some topics, like health policy, it was apparent that he was not a one issue candidate. By the fall of '07 many active Democrats were taking note and drawing favorable impressions.

Sam probably locked the hearts and minds of many Democrats by his willingness to show up and campaign for local and General Assembly candidates. With a smile and energy he went door-to-door, attended fundraisers, and helped where needed. Democrats didn't forget.

By the end of the year Sam was well positioned for the push for the nomination. He'd been to most local committees several times, had built up goodwill among even his skeptics, and had committed volunteers in most counties and cities. He'd grown as a candidate and developed his depth of knowledge on the core issues. He'd shown a willingness to attack Goodlatte on his failures - red meat for Democrats. He'd secured, or was close to securing, the support of various party leaders who appreciated his demonstrated commitment to local committees.

As we entered the new year the question echoed "where is that other guy who was going to run?" For months, rumors had been floating about his candidacy, but nothing was happening. He had great credentials and a compelling life story, but active Democrats didn't know much about him. I remember one person asking in a meeting "what about the FBI guy . . .?" and only a couple people there knew his name. Drew did write interesting columns for a newspaper and made bioterrorism presentations groups, but he really had not connected with the very groups who would be determining the nomination.

In January, Drew began visiting committees and more publicly floating the idea of his candidacy. His main theme then (and in the forum in Harrisonburg last week) seemed to be electability. Yes, he talked about security and other issues, but to many Democrats there was uncertainty about where he stood on core issues. Most importantly, time was running out to organize a good campaign before the local caucuses in mid April.

The uncertainly was reinforced when Drew did eventually announce. For a while, his website was only a greetings portal devoid of discussion of issues. Rumors were rife that he'd asked several people to join his campaign and he'd been rebuffed. Eventually word spread that he had Adam Sharp and Rick Howell on board. Both Adam and Rick have campaign experience and many thought the battle for the nomination had finally been joined.

However, many Democrats recoiled at the negative campaign that began emerging. Questioning Sam's age, contributions, religion, experiences, loyalty, etc. . . . ad nauseam. Posts on Rick's site and other blogs like Cobalt6 quickly became heated. Someone created a new blog, 81blue, to subtly attack Rasoul. Drew personally remained above the fray, but the message generated by Adam's and Rick's tactics was clear: with time short, the path to a Richardson victory was to be found in tearing Rasoul down rather than by lifting Richardson up. I'll repeat, many Democrats recoiled. Emotions got raw. Positions hardened.

Such a strategy may have worked in a primary where a larger numbers of people voting may not have known either candidate personally. But in local caucuses, where the participants would likely be party activists who knew both candidates, it was doomed.

By the first of April, it was clear that time was running short for the Richardson campaign to round up delegates for all the local caucuses throughout the district. Instead of negative attacks, the campaign staff could better have better spent time calling and meeting Democrats to make personal appeals. But, Rasoul's folks weren't sitting still - they were lining up committed delegates at every opportunity.

Drew is a smart guy and, given this landscape, he knew the odds were heavily against his eventual success. The caucuses would have been bloody battles filled with rules and credentials challenges. Rumor is that he was never comfortable with the negative tone coming out of his campaign - a piercing tone that crowded out his discussions on issues.

Drew's comments as he withdrew from the campaign were both gracious and realistic, creating the environment for greater party unity as we face the fall campaign. Hopefully, his supporters will follow his lead. Drew is a committed Democrat and we can all hope he will stay active in the 6th District and perhaps seek office at another time.

So, what has this old rooster learned by pecking around in the coarse cracked corn of this campaign?

Get an early start - especially important if you aren't known to Democrats throughout this large district. Perhaps someone with widespread name recognition could enter just a couple months before the caucuses and prevail, but there aren't too many candidates like that.

Resist going negative - Democrats are not comfortable with negative campaigning, especially against one of their own. Pointing out differences on issues is okay; getting personal or rumormongering is not.

Get comfortable with retail politics - all politics is personal and Sam has proven to be very good and comfortable at it. All magnified in a caucus nominating process.

Pay your dues - a commitment to helping other Democrats' campaigns and fundraising events will not be forgotten.

OK, enough pecking in the coarse cracked corn of this one. Moving on . . .

Peck. Peck.

Scrambled Eggs

At the Democratic "debate" in Harrisonburg last night, Sam Rasoul and Drew Richardson laid out their views on issues. Not much of a "debate" because they really aren't all that far apart on the key issues. So according to the Daily News-Record account, the main discussion was electability. Richardson touted his age (56) and experience (FBI) as the keys to winning. On the other hand, Rasoul pointed to his year-long campaign and hard work for the party that has brought him into contact with every part of the sprawling 6th District.

A strong Democrats may be able unseat Goodlatte - nationally the issues like Iraq, the mortgage meltdown, the economy, health care.... and many others favor Democrats. In Virginia, a ticket lead by Mark Warner will be strong.

But, a reality check. There is a fox in the henhouse. Unseating an entrenched incumbent is tough - they win about 90% of the time. Goodlatte has money in the bank and friends with lots of laying mash to keep that feeder full. And we all know there are a lots of GOP clucks in the district who will keep peckin' they way they always have. What I am saying is this: which candidate Rasoul or Richardson, is in this race for the long haul? Which one will attend the county fairs, the committee meetings, the community dinners, the parades, and all the other things that will be necessary to introduce himself to the voters and win their hearts, minds, and votes? If he should come up short on Election Day, which candidate will be around afterwards working for Democrats and the issues which we care deeply about? Which one may see a loss as an opportunity to run again, build on his base, and win? Peck, peck...

Sam, Drew - what do ya say?

There's a Responsible Plan to End the War posted online that is getting some attention among bloggers and others. It has picked up support from some interesting folks, including Tom Perriello who is running for Congress in the 5th District, Leslie Byrne in the 11th District, and Mike Turner in the 10th District.

What say you Drew? Sam? The Plan has several aspects including military, diplomatic, and humanitarian concerns in Iraq. But, it goes beyond the current war in Iraq to include restoration of constitutional checks and balances and rights, rebuilding our military, guaranteeing an independent "watchdog" news media, and finding a path to energy independence.

Don't want to get in a big back and forth debate here, but it would be great if each of you would post a response to the plan addressing each point. Either of you willing to sign-on to the plan? Why or why not?

Ah, Mr. Goodlatte.... don't want to leave you out. If you can find your way to ask lame duck irrelevant George how you should respond that will be great. After all, these will be key issues for the next Representative of the 6th District. Don't you think you should let your constituents know what you (I mean your puppeteers) think?

Endorsements mean something

When I consider endorsements for candidates like senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain I generally discount their importance. Often these endorsements are made because of back room deals, in-state political reasons, or intricate insider calculus and one may question their sincerity. But, when endorsements are made in local and regional races, it is more than likely because of personal connections, trust, friendship, and because of an awareness of the local landscape.

I thought I'd peck around to see what coarse cracked endorsements Sam Rasoul and Drew Richardson have picked up so far. My list probably isn't complete and each candidate will probably add names over the next weeks. Here's what I have found so far (please let me know if you know of others):

Sam's endorsements

Evelyn Powers, Roanoke City Treasurer

Sherry Stanley, former Chair of the VA Green Party

Hirley Kothemeimer, Chair of Roanoke Valley Democratic Women

Jim Fain, Chair of Botetourt Co. Democratic Committee

Tom Long, Chair of Augusta Co. Democratic Committee

Charlotte Moore, Roanoke Co. Board of Supervisors

Joe Fitzgerald, former Harrisonburg mayor 

Nelson Harris, Roanoke mayor

Drew's endorsements

At this time I know of none.

A year and a half ago, neither of these gentlemen were known to 6th District Democrats. Sam got a long head start and Drew joined the race early in 2008. They've visited committees, made speeches, appeared at a couple forums, eaten all sorts of hors d' oeuvres, engaged in one-on-one talk, and shook lots of hands. I hope they've also done some listening.

Obviously, one candidate has made a connection with some local Democrats while the other apparently hasn't . . . yet. There are a lot of local leaders and many more Democrats who haven't taken a public position. Only three weeks until the local caucuses. Time for local leaders to . . . lead.