VA Women, Don't Let Obama and Kaine Reduce you to Birth Control Voters

Throughout this election cycle, Barack Obama and his friend Tim Kaine have made it clear that women only care about birth control. Tim Kaine is running a series of ads entitled Virginia featuring different women upset that George Allen will reduce their access to birth control.



Barack Obama made headlines releasing an ad for women, reminiscent of one by Vladimir Putin, which compares voting for Obama to a woman losing her virginity.


Adding insult to injury, the President's campaign memorably encouraged women to "Vote like your ladyparts depend on it. Because they kinda do."



These are only the highlights of the ongoing Democrat effort this election cycle to define women purely by their ability and desire to have sex.  If you believe it is wrong to stereotype women as people whose primary desires are free birth control and unrestricted abortions, then you should speak out this election cycle. If issues like the economy, unemployment, and the national debt matter to you, then tell Barack Obama and Tim Kaine this election.  Don't let them distract you from their failed record on this issue.  If you are a woman who believes in the sanctity of life and that people who have religious objections to birth control shouldn't be forced to pay for it, Obama's stance on these issues gives you even more reason to make your voice heard this election.  Make sure Obama and Kaine realize that not all women are the same, and tell them to stop insulting women. Watch this entertaining TV ad.  Let's stand together for our future.

Jamie Radtke Announces for U.S. Senate

Jamie Radtke is the first to announce her intentions to run for U.S. Senate against Jim Webb in 2012. The former head of the Virginia Tea Party Federation filed the paper work to run in the last couple days. George Allen, Bob Marshall, and Corey Stewart are also almost certain to file in the next month or two.

In an interview, Ms. Radtke said she decided to run after watching Congress pass
legislation during this month’s lame duck session, including a package of tax
cuts, that added to the national debt.

“It has become clear that many in Congress still don’t get it,” she said. “The tax bill did nothing to cut the huge debt burden on all of us.”

Ms. Radtke gained some prominence in Virginia this year as the main organizer of a large tea party convention in Richmond, which drew nearly 3,000 participants.

If she is going to win she needs to unite the ant-George Allen elements, and a strong first quarter fundraising could go a long way towards that. Also for the record she decided to run well before the tax deal was negotiated.

How Desperate is George Allen?

In less than two years Virginia will have a competitive election for U.S. Senate. It appears George Allen is all in as he fights to reclaim his old seat.

Regardless of your opinion on state central's decision to nominate our 2012 U.S. Senate candidate through a primary, the timing of the vote seemed to be politically motivated. While people were originally being told state central would vote on that issue in March, suddenly days before the November meeting Mike Thomas, a close George Allen ally, moved the vote to that meeting. While Mike Thomas denied the timing of the vote was politically motivated, a long time Allen ally ramming through a vote that would help George Allen seems to be a very political move.

As if setting the method of nomination in his favor weren't enough, it now appears George Allen is trying to clear the field of primary opponents. Corey Stewart is planning to run for U.S. Senate. He recently made some critical comments about a George Allen candidacy. (One of few high ranking elected officials to do that.) Days after making those comments, the Washington Posts that Corey Stewart may face a primary challenge in 2011. A few more days pass and we learn that George Allen may be behind this primary challenge.

Appearances suggest George Allen is setting the method for the nomination contest, and clearing the field of opponents. This smacks of some one desperate for power. George Allen has a record and connections. He should be using them to build support, and lay out a bold message for why we should support him, not manipulating the system so that he is the only option we have.

Corey Stewart Takes on George Allen

Now that 2010 is over attention is turning to the 2012 Senate elections in VA, and the effort to unseat Jim Webb. In a recent interview Corey Stewart points out the difficulties George Allen will have running for U.S. Senate. Both men are currently planning bids for U.S. Senate. Bob Marshall, and Jamie Radke are also currently running for the nomination.

Cuccinelli Supports Making Conventions Financially Viable

The State Central meeting at the Advance this weekend will be about one thing. Conventions. Cuccinelli is proposing party plan amendments to make conventions more financially viable. These have been debated and discussed by party activists since they were first unveiled in the summer. As a supporter of conventions, I support Cuccinelli's efforts. Bill Bolling and Bob Marshall along with others are opposing them.


The other issue is that it seems Mike Thomas and others have decided to force a vote for a primary at the meeting. Bob Marhsall who seems inexplicably on a warpath against conventions is also supporting the vote for a primary, even though that will insure that he loses if he runs for U.S. Senate. Apparently he has a proxy and will be voting for a primary at the meeting on Saturday.


I will post more about the primary vote later. For now, here is Ken Cuccinelli's statement on the party plan amendments he is proposing.

MEMO – PARTY PLAN AMENDMENTS TO BE VOTED ON AT 2010 RPV ADVANCE
From: KEN
CUCCINELLI
TO: MEMBERS OF RPV STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

This memo is intended to share my perspective on the content and purpose of the two party plan amendments being proposed that will increase the financial viability of conventions as a method of nomination for statewide offices. These amendments to the party plan are being proposed in light of the 2009 convention, which left RPV with lingering financial obligations.

1. The first proposal being put forward is to allow the party to charge up to a $25,000 filing fee for candidates for all statewide offices.
2. The second is to allow the party the option of charging pre-file fees to delegates to attend conventions. The number being put forward is no more than $50 per delegate.

My reason for supporting these concepts may seem counter-intuitive. When you think of an entire nomination process - including the campaign itself, not merely the nomination election day - a very large convention filing fee, e.g., $25K for a candidate for statewide office will cost much more than a primary filing fee (approximately $4,000), but running a convention campaign can be done for a fraction of the cost of running a primary campaign.If you compare the cost of the 2009 Cuccinelli/Brownlee/Foster convention to the candidates – about $1 million total, to the cost of the 2005 McDonnell/Baril primary to the candidates – about $5 million total, it’s clear that even with significant filing fees, conventions provide the lowest cost access to a realistic, competitive nomination.

By increasing the likelihood that conventions will end up in the black financially, they will be even more viable as a nomination option. Following this page are some questions I’ve encountered about the need for these proposals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are these fees helpful?

In an ideal world, we would not have to charge fees at all in order to run for public office. Personally, I am in favor of keeping the bar to entry for candidates to enter nomination contests as low as possible. However, because the 2009 GOP Convention resulted in a financial loss for RPV, it would be helpful to make changes so that the State Central Committee can vote for conventions without serious concern that it will send the Party into the red.

Won’t these fees make it more expensive for longshot or low dollar candidates?

No, exactly the opposite. While these fees represent a significant increase from the 2008 and 2009 conventions, they are still significantly lower than the cost of running a statewide primary. For example, in 2005 McDonnell/Baril primary cost both candidates a combined total of around 5 million dollars, whereas in 2009, the convention contest for the same office cost less than 1 million dollars.Conventions are, by far, the cheapest method of nomination for statewide office. By far.If conventions are not more reliably financially viable – the alternative (primaries) will shut out many candidates who otherwise would have had a realistic shot in a convention.

Won’t delegate filing fees keep people from attending the convention?

While charging a fee for delegates to attend a convention is undesirable in some circumstances, it doesn’t mean it will substantially lower the turnout. For example, the 1978, 1993 and 1994 GOP conventions were the largest conventions in Virginia’s history, yet in all three the Party charged a pre-filing fee for delegates.

Will the Department of Justice approve these changes to the Party Plan?

Maybe. This is something that we will only know when an approved party plan amendment is submitted to the DoJ. Based on a case that arose in Virginia, the courts have said that delegate fees would have to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act. This is one of those that we just won’t know until we try.

Is there any alternative to charging delegate and candidate fees?

At the moment I believe these are the two simplest alternatives. Voluntary contributions to the party to help offset the cost of conventions are the other most obvious alternative; however, it may be dicey to rely upon that approach to generate the necessary revenue to pay for the event.It is important to remember
that these proposals are to allow RPV to charge the fees if you all feel they are necessary to pay for the conventions. If we come up with an alternate revenue source in the future – the fees may not end up being necessary, and thus don’t need to be charged. This is simply a vote to allow RPV SCC the discretion to charge the fees if they feel they are necessary.ant to remember that these proposals are to allow RPV to charge the fees if you all feel they are necessary to pay for the conventions. If we come up with an alternate revenue source in the future – the fees may not end up being necessary, and thus don’t need to be charged. This is simply a vote to allow RPV SCC the discretion to charge the fees if they feel they are necessary.

Mitch McConnell: Americans Are Common Sense Conservatives

In a speech reminiscent of George Allen, the Senate Minority leader talked about common sense conservativism at the FRC Action Conference.

"Most Americans are common sense conservatives, while most running D.C. are not."

He took Obama to task on two issues on healthcare.

1. The idea Americans can keep their own coverage under the plan
2. The idea abortions will not be funded under the plan.

He spoke of the triumph of common sense conservatives in America. The three examples he used were the slow down of the health care bill, the fight on Guantanamo, and the fight over spending.

McConnell made the point that in the first 50 days Obama cost America more money than Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina combined.

I hope McConnell continues to be successful in his opposition to the many things Obama is trying to Rahm through this congress.

Was George Allen Involved in the Effort to Remove Jeff Frederick

Ever since the call for the April 4th State Central Meeting was leaked it was apparent that Bob McDonnell was behind it. However, now that Jeff has been removed some speculate George Allen may behind this, and may even be looking at becoming the next party chair. Spank That Donkey wrote two articles that sum up most of the speculation on this subject. One article deals specifically with George Allen, while the other discusses Mike Thomas's role in ending the effort for Jeff and Bob McDonnell to reach a resolution.

The thrill of victory... and the agony of defeat

In Virginia if the margin of victory in an election is within .5%, the loser may request a recount.

Over the past three years Virginia has had three races that have fallen within the .5% margin of victory.

2005

Initial reults reported Bob McDonnell defeated Creigh Deeds in the race for Attorney General's race by 323 votes.

2006

Jim Webb defeated incumbent senator, George Allen, by 9,000 votes out of over 2 million votes cast, a margin of victory of about .45 %

2007

After the canvassing was completed in the race for Virginia's 37th senate district, Ken Cuccinelli was still leading Janet Olsezek by 92 votes, a margin of .2%.

So what's the point of all these boring numbers? I just want to take a moment to point out who it was that called for recounts. Only the Democrats can't handle being defeated. Creigh Deeds dragged the state through a recount, and spent thousands of taxpayers dollars to make sure we counted everyone's vote. When the recount finally ended in the middle of December, Bob McDonnell's margin of victory actually increased by thirty seven votes. In 2006 with control of the senate hanging on t outcome of his senate race, George Allen chose not to drag the state, and the country, through a recount. He waited to see the results of the canvass, and then stepped out in front of the cameras, thanked his supporters for all their work, thanked teh state for electing him before, and then conceeded. Now in 2007 after the canvass was completed, Janet Olsezek, or was it her campaign manager, has called for a recount in one of the closest VA state senate races ever.

But why would Janet pull the people she wants through a recount and spend thousands of taxpayers dollars on this? Is there anything to indicate that the recount could change the outcome of the election? No. The canvassing changed nothing, and the provisional ballots actually gave Ken one more vote. No concrete accusation of voter fraud have been leveled. So why cal for a recount unless you simply can't stand losing?

While many things can be learned from George Allen's senate race, one lesson is when you have lost, be willing to concede. The only to call for a recount would be if there are serious instances of voting fraud, like more votes cast in a county than its registered voters. Virginia has never had major voter fraud, and there has never been a real reason to call for a recount. Anyone that loses a close race should have the courae to concede.

Memo to Democrat candidates: While defeat is agonizing, don't be too shocked if you lose while running against the rising conservative stars in Virginia.

Is it really inevitable?

WSLS and Jay Warren once again proved they were very balance journalists. For someone who was thinking that it is almost inevitable that Mark Warner will become sentaor, this stry realy made me smile.

Warner to Announce Decision on Senate Run Thursday

Jay Warren

WSLS NewsChannel 10

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Will he or won't he? Mark Warner can stop sweating it, as he will announce his decision about his future political career Thursday morning in an e-mail to supporters.

And, what a tough decision Mark Warner has! On the one hand he can run in 2008 to replace John Warner in the US Senate. On the other hand he can run in 2009 for another term as governor. Either option is viable because Warner left the governor’s mansion with some of the highest approval ratings in Virginia history.

And, that’s a rating that appears to have stuck with him. A recent poll by Rasmussen Research shows Warner’s favorability rating at 68%. The same poll has Warner beating the two most likely Republican senate challengers by 20 and 27 points.

Governor Tim Kaine, the Democrat who succeeded Warner, gave no hint on his friend’s decision other than to say, “Virginia will be lucky either way.”

WSLS Political Analyst Dr.Bob Denton says it is likely Warner will pick the Senate and calls him the favorite.

“He's one of the most popular politicians in the commonwealth of Virginia. He has some campaign experience now,” Denton said.

But not so fast. Do you remember the last guy we thought had a lock an election: Senator George Allen. At one point he was 30 points ahead in his 2006 re-election bid. He went on to lose to Democrat Jim Webb.

Allen was in Moneta Wednesday campaigning for a local Republican running for the House of Delegates. He said he won’t run for the Senate in ’08, but said, “I think Mark's going to run for the US Senate.”

Allen was brought down in part thanks to a campaign misstep that ended up on YouTube. The Internet has changed the game for politicians, meaning Warner shouldn't take anything for granted.

“He does have to campaign and campaign hard,” Dr. Denton said. “He has to earn the position. But, at the same time I would say it's as much his to lose and his to win.”

Now I know what to say...

First of all a big thank you to for your advice.

Here goes...

Introvert/Extrovert: The unanimous consensus is that I'm an extrovert, and y'all are definitely right. I'm not the center of attention of a crowd like some I know, but sheesh if you campaign as much as I do you have to be an extrovert. Shortly after the whole "n" word story broke about George Allen, I was at a black heritage festival passing out lit for the senator, and debaters are definitely extroverts. If you're shy when you start debating, a lot of that will go away as you continue.

Pessimist/Optimist: I consider myself an optimistic realistic. Whenever I look at the future I see a very dire situation, but I am confident that the Christian youth in this country, led by God, will reclaim our land. Here is another example... Last fall I knew we were in for a difficult midterm election, everyone knew that, but at about 7 or 8 on election night I told evedyah that I was looking forward to the red wave that was about to sweep over the country. I see things for what they are, but I refuse to resign myself to an evil future so I call myself an optimistic realist.

Favorite color: I don't really have a favorite color, although I have favorite color combinations. Two of them would be blue and orange (mets.com) and blue and gold (generationjoshua.org)

Taste in music: Country, especially the patriotic country, a little classical, and some contemporary christian. I love Michael Card, and Steve Green. I also like Relient K, and two of Casting Crowns songs, "And if we are His Body" and "What if His People Prayed?" really are excellent.

Organized/disorganized: Let's leave it at this, I'm disorganized.

Passive/aggressive: I'm aggressive, not in a mean intimidating way (I hope), but I like to get things done. I'll let y'all know about something I did in a later post.

Fashion: I like to dress up when called for, but I love decdent casual. Nice jeans and a warm fleece are awesome in the winter. And a pair of shorts and a nice shirt fit me just fine in summer. Now the accusation was raised that I look nerdy on political campaigns. Why not if it helps you stay relaxed, and win?


Learning style: slow but steady wins the race. Right? Well... not quite I like to learn and I'm not to certain about the answer to this one, but I definitely enjoy learning in groups with thoughtful discussions.

Enjoy... Thanks for commenting, and I love my friends.

Reagan Conservatives, Your Candidate is not Dead

Don't count George Allen out

Ed Lynch

Lynch is chairman of the Roanoke County Republican Party.

In the wake of the Senate election results in Virginia, George Allen's political obituary is being written ... again. By my count, this is the fifth time political experts have tried to shovel dirt on his grave, prematurely.

In the 2008 presidential polls, which started coming out within hours of the 2006 elections, Allen's name is not even included, although Democratic polls still include Al Gore, John Kerry and Howard Dean. Losing a single election does not necessarily mean permanent exile from presidential consideration.

There is no reason to assume Allen is definitively out of the 2008 race, although his task is formidable. The pundits who are writing him off ignore some pertinent facts.

First, there was no other candidate in the United States whom the national Democratic Party worked harder to destroy this year. Democrats tried to defeat most other Republicans; they worked to savage Allen.

Every part of the Democratic coalition -- the mainstream media, labor, the anti-war left, and both Bill and Hillary Clinton -- descended on Virginia to defeat Allen. Moreover, they did so by using their most vile campaign tactics, making Allen's race almost a microcosm of Democratic dirty tricks.

The Democrats, by their actions, have declared Allen to be the front-runner for 2008, even if Republicans have not yet done so. Allen's opponents are deathly afraid of him, and always have been.

Second, in spite of all of the Democrats' efforts, Allen lost by only about 9,000 votes, out of more than 2.3 million cast. A change of only three votes per precinct, and Allen would be starting his second term as U.S. Senator, and, I might add for those pundits who see a Democratic mandate in the national results, the Republicans would still be in control of the Senate.

Third, it is not cable news political pundits -- least of all the now-discredited Larry Sabato -- who get to choose the candidates for the GOP nomination. That task belongs to hard-working, dedicated Republican political activists, in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and, yes, Virginia.

One Iowa GOP county chair recently called me to ask about Allen. He began by saying, "Lots of us are looking for someone we can really get behind," and he finished our conversation by asking, "So how do I get aboard this train?" Look for Allen to continue to receive invitations to the early primary states.

For Republican primary voters, Allen can come to symbolize the mud-slinging, no-holds-barred, do-absolutely-anything-to-win Democratic campaign of 2006.

It was a year in which some Democratic bloggers openly hoped for another terrorist attack so that President Bush could be blamed and a Democratic majority assured.

Democrats got their majority and created millions of Republican activists looking for the best way to retaliate. Voting for the man whom Democrats tried hardest to defeat will hold a definite appeal.

I do not mean to minimize the difficulty of Allen's task, or excuse the mistakes of his 2006 campaign. But the adversity has immunized him from further personal attack. By 2008, personal attacks on Allen will reek of yesterday's news.

Moreover, he is now the consummate underdog, as he was when he ran for governor in 1993. He can run the sort of aggressive, anti-establishment, insurgent campaign at which he is best.

Allen's political obituary has been written before. In 1979, after he lost his first political race, pundits in Charlottesville wrote him off.

In 1993, after a poor performance at a debate, no less an authority than the then-head of the Republican Party of Virginia gave up on Allen.

And Harris Miller, who ran against Jim Webb in the Democratic primary, tried to pronounce Allen dead and buried on the day of Allen's inauguration as governor.

In fact, 2006 offers an exact parallel from earlier in Allen's career. In 1991, after Allen served one term in Congress, the entire Virginia Democratic establishment collaborated to redraw the state's congressional district lines to deny Allen his seat. And the Democrats congratulated themselves for successfully doing so. Two years later, the Democrats' glib smugness vanished, as Allen returned, this time as governor.

Now, after Allen served one term in the Senate, the entire national Democratic establishment collaborated to smear his character, destroy his reputation and deny him his seat. And they are, once again, congratulating themselves for doing so.

Democrats should have learned to be more careful what they wish for. History sometimes repeats itself.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/wb/xp-94318