Whom Do You Endorse?

I guess I gave the Daily Progress too much credit when I speculated that they’d endorse former governor Mark Warner for Senate—today they endorsed Jim Gilmore. Warner has become the darling of Virginia Republicans, largely because of his solid business credentials, his centrism, and the work he did to balance the state budget. The former Republican governor, on the other hand, is on track to earn perhaps 20% of the vote in Charlottesville, maybe upwards of 30% of the vote in Albemarle, and he might top 35% statewide.

The Daily Progress has a rich history of chuckle-worthy endorsements, occasionally having to bend over backwards to endorse Republicans who are totally ill-suited for the job. When Kenneth Jackson—a Republican with no political experience or even really work history—was running for City Council, the Progress endorsed him, despite that he’d been convicted of attacking people with knives on three separate occasions over the course of a decade. They asked: “What other candidate has seen the law enforcement system, the court system, the social services system from the perspective of somebody in trouble?” The paper endorsed Bush in 2000, reasonably enough, citing seven reasons why they supported him—he would unite the Republican and Democratic parties, he’d hold his staff to the highest of standards, he’d create jobs, etc. But even though President Bush failed to accomplish a single of those things, they they endorsed him again in 2004.

So, whom do you endorse for House (Republican Virgil Goode vs. Democrat Tom Perriello), Senate (Republican Jim Gilmore vs. Democrat Mark Warner vs. Libertarian Bill Redpath), or the presidency (Libertarian Bob Barr vs. Republican John McCain vs. Independent Ralph Nader vs. Democrat Barack Obama) and, more important, why?

44 Responses to “Whom Do You Endorse?”


  • Thank you Waldo, you are spot on about the Progress. This was a test for them to be objective and not show the ideology of the three editorial writers. They failed and showed their true colors. If a candidate is not qualified based on a horrible track record that has been self-serving and you collectively align with their party, just don’t endorse. It’s called principal.

  • Let’s just say that if Charlottesville were a small city in Germany and the Täglich Fortschritte, aka “Daily Progress”, its local newspaper, I imagine that in 1989, faced with the need to weigh in on the great historical decision of the moment, the editorial board would have written an unabashed endorsement of leaving the Berlin Wall standing.

    That’s how predictably wrong the Progress has been in the past decade on the most important choices.

    As for why I’m voting (have voted, actually–will be out of town on the 4th) for Obama (and Perriello/Warner): the Berlin Wall analogy is actually quite apt. For eight years we have been governed by an administration that has sought to centralize all power in the Executive branch and create an almost literal wall between it and both the legislative branch and the general public and media. (David Bromwich’s piece on Dick Cheney in the current New York Review of Books [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22060] is a good summary of this process.) At the same time, the national Republican Party has been consistently willing to foster division and culture war as an electoral tactic. A year ago, I would have guessed that John McCain as well as Barack Obama might have the potential to reverse this process, but almost all of his decisions and choices since then have shown the opposite. He has compromised his independence on issues like immigration and torture in order to satisfy the “base”; he has gone along with the very worst of the Rovean tactics that were used against him in 2000; he has picked as a vice-presidential candidate someone whose single strong qualification is her effectiveness as a culture warrior.

    McCain was my senator when I lived in Arizona during the ’90s. I disagreed with but respected him. Today I disagree with him but have lost much of my respect for him. I think it’s quite clear that, effective as he has been in many ways as a senator, he is not fit for the presidency. He has made too many mistakes as an executive in the management of his campaign, in taking bad advice from staffers of questionable competence, in letting his emotions get in the way of his judgment. All very poor prognosis for a career in the White House.

    Obama has run a masterful campaign. This is no small thing. In 2004 I supported Wes Clark during the primaries. Clark was a brilliant 4-star general who had risen up the ranks to become the European Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces at the time of the Kosovo war. Surely someone with powerful executive experience. But he ran a fairly weak campaign, making some of McCain’s mistakes: poor decisions about election strategy, staffing decisions that backfired, inability to keep an organization together and on message. Obama, by contrast, has a genius for pulling together an effective staff, getting the right kinds of allies, soliciting the right kinds of advice (including constructive criticism that enables him to change tack), and inspiring loyalty and commitment in his team, from top to bottom. All of that is the diametric opposite of the disfunctionality we’ve seen in the Bush White House, and precisely what we need to have any chance of cleaning up the various messes we’ve created in the next few years.

  • In case it’s not obvious, I want to call up that the Progress has the right to endorse absolutely anybody that they want, and that there’s nothing inherently wrong with making a choice that runs counter to the preferences of the majority of their readers. But by endorsing Republicans no matter how incompetent, they show themselves not to be bold of mind and strong of spirit, but rather to possess that hobgoblin of little minds about which Emerson warned. I’m not arguing that Republicans tend to be incompetent moreso than Democrats—I suspect the rate is about equal—but rather than the Progress finds themselves endorsing incompetent candidates because they are Republican, showing that ideological purity is more important to them than ideas, experience, a record, or competence.

    As self-evidently shameful as it was for them to endorse Kenneth Jackson on no basis to which they could point (save for his oh-so-enriching time behind bars), I put Gilmore in the same category, not because he’s stabbed people, but because the Progress editorial board has shown themselves as unable to support their endorsement of Gilmore as they were of Jackson. After all, they could summon only two reasons: keeping the Senate short of a veto-proof majority (in which case one must assume that they also endorse the reelection of convicted felon Sen. Ted Stevens) and the fact that he’s pro-business (precisely the quality that Warner possesses in spades, hence his overwhelming support from the business community.) Even our senator, Republican John Warner refuses to endorse or have anything to do with Gilmore, and hints that he’ll end up supporting Mark Warner (no relation) for the seat.

    The newspaper gets to endorse whomever they want, but in making unpopular endorsements that they cannot support through explanation, they reduce the force of their endorsements on the whole, and of the positions taken on a variety of matters by the paper throughout the year. And with the Progress having the only editorial board in the area in the business of making endorsements, it’s a shame to lose that resource.

  • My “endorsements”:

    Obama, because he has a good chance of getting this country back in good standing with what used to be our allies.

    Warner. Besides all of his positives, he’s also not Gilmore.

    Periello, who I know almost nothing about, because I’ve met Goode and he’s a grade-A jackass.

  • Danville Register & Bee endorsed Pariello today. Now here’s the sad part. It was reported in the DP, which also reported that the Lynchburg Advance endorsed Goode. All three papers are owned by Media General. MG has lost most of its shareholder value. So if we lose one of these papers, we loose them all.

  • With newspapers, its the publisher, and ultimately the paper’s owners, which in this case is Media General’s head honchos, that decide endorsements. Not the actual writer of the editorial.
    Still,endorsing Gilmore does come as a bit of a surprise,given Warner’s popularity in the business community, and Gilmore’s unpopularity everywhere.

  • Next they will endorse McShame and Virgil.

    No one should be shocked. it’s a right wing paper. Then on Tue. when Obama and Warner win they look as stupid as we know they are.

    I don’t think anyone cares who they endorse anyway.

  • Campaigns care, A LOT. As evidenced by DCCC adding Roanoke’s endorsement to its commercial and Warner’s commercial highlighting all of the endorsements.

  • My wife and I are happily voting for Obama and the Democratic ticket on Tuesday for several reasons. The first and foremost is ending the occupation of Iraq and refocusing our resources in this so-called “war on terror”
    The second reason is adjusting the tax code and ending the breaks for mega-high wage earners instituted by Bush.
    The third reason is retooling No Child Left Behind.
    And finally we vote for the anticipation of optimism and inclusion profoundly missing these past eight years.

  • After finishing the book “The Big Con” by Jonathan Chait it would take a maverick republician for me to vote for them, but the Maverick from 2000 is not the John McCain of 2008.

    Plus, there is no way I could live with being responsible for making Palin “a heartbeat away”.

    That leaves Obama and Barr. Being a physician who doesn’t take 3rd party payments or medicare I’m very inclinced to vote Libertarian, but this year I feel it’s too important on many other issues to have my vote not go to Senator Obama.

    For senate I am going to give my vote to Redpath, if the polls are showing such a big lead for Warner, he can spare my vote.

    For Delegate, Perriello. From reading the article about him in the free weekly paper, he seems like a good guy.

    What ever became of instant run off voting?

  • Just read the editorial. It is the lamest piece of writing I think I have ever read on the DP editorial page . I’ll go farther. Its total bullshit!
    Mark Warner and Tim Kaine have spent the seven years trying to clean up the mess Gilmore left behind in our budget and tax systems.
    Why would they endorse someone not even popular in his own party? John Warner is not endorsing him and I have heard he didn’t even get along with George Allen, another conservative. His unpopularity helped cost Mark Earley the governorship.
    Why does the Progress go out of its way to display how out of touch it is with this community? Backing someone who will surely lose big on Tuesday shows just how irrelevant it has become.
    Daily Regress indeed!

  • FWIW, I don’t think that there’s anything with backing somebody who will surely lose. There’s a “speaking truth to power” element that can make such endorsements a good and necessary force. An election is not, after all, a horse race. The trouble here is that the Progress is not doing that. They endorse folks like Gilmore and Jackson without explaining their logic in enough detail to convince a soul.

    Compare that to the R&B’s endorsement of Tom Perriello, which is lengthy and detailed. They knew they were doing something unpopular, but knew that in order to change anybody’s minds, they’d have to explain.

  • I received the November 1 issue of The Economist today, and on page 15 the magazine “wholeheartedly” endorses Obama. I was as surprised as much as I was pleased to read it.

  • I say, old man, perhaps the Progress will endorse Mr. Brown and Labor in the next U.K. elections. Not that I disagree with the Economist: I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever on Tuesday.

    If you want a break from politics, I recommend joining me in a non-partisan viewing of “Mock Up on Mu,” at Vinegar Hill, Sunday at 4. The Scientologists may be onto something——it does seem that space invaders have been running the country for the last 7 years 10 months!

    Here’s a description of film:

    Hey! Maybe L. Ron Hubbard will emerge victorious. I think I’ll check with Dick Chaney on his election day plans. Oh, Dick! I say, Dick!

  • I guess I used the wrong format. Here’s the link to the official VA Film Fest description of “Mock Up on Mu” :

    [http://www.vafilm.com/schedule/blurbs/mock-up-on-mu/]

  • Well, the good news is that after this Tuesday, Obama will be able to actually create write more legislation than books about himself…

    Just thought someone should put in something to balance the love fest.

    That said, I am not happy with either choice. If anyone here actually believes that Obama will be able to do everything he has promised without hitting well below the 250K belt he has promised…well, feel free to put up some wagers before Tuesday…

    Of course, unlike the last Charismatic under experienced Democrat to be elected, he will not have the election bought by Dad via Daly getting lots of dead people (not wearing buttons to the pooling stations mind you Waldo!) to push him through.

    And when/if elected, he will be my president. Of my country.

  • I endorse Obama and Perriello. I endorse Obama because I actually think he’ll provide some hope and new vision to a country that desperately needs it right now. This isn’t just a campaign slogan. As a nation, the past eight years has really damaged our reputation. Our Nation has detained people indefinitely without a trial and tortured them. We’ve created massive CIA files on pacifist churches like the Quakers, and spied on U.S. citizens. We’ve rolled back 30-40 years of environmental legislation. This isn’t exactly the America I learned about as a kid in Boy Scouts. I feel strongly that Obama will do alot to heal the damage we’ve suffered over eight years, not just to our economy but also the damage done to our reputation. Obama is not my perfect candidate though. Suffice it to say my perfect cadidate would never use a Orwellian word like “clean coal”.

    Speaking of reputations, I was the first among my friends to say that McCain should get a fair shot. If he’d stuck to his reputation as a moderate republican then he might have stood a chance of swaying me. Unfortunately, somehow he seems to have got it in his head that American really wanted Huckabee, and he just got nominated by mistake. He’s spent the whole election trying his best to kiss the cheeks of the fundementalist evangelicals he used to (rightly) criticize. If he loses, then it won’t be because he wasn’t conservative enough, it will because he violated his own principles.

    As for Perriello, it’s one thing for us to say we should have leaders that we can respect, but it’s an incredible thing to see an individual up for election that has had such a remarkable life of service. He was in my class throughout most of my time in school, but that’s not why I’d vote for him. If anything, he gets negative points for that(After all, I don’t recall him as the kind of guy that hung out with people like myself.) I will vote for him because he’s truely taken his father’s words to heart, and used his life to making the world better. When he says he’ll work a double shift to make our country better, I can believe it. Not so keen on his fondness for earmarks, nor do I think he’ll be willing to go up against the coal and oil companies for sake of the environment (although I do see him strongly advocating alternatives). I’m also not thrilled about how he’s made such a big deal of his faith. After all, not all people in the U.S. are Christian, and he has to represent those people too. All in all though, when compared to Goode I really can’t complain. After all, it’s not like Goode is exactly an environmentalist, and when it comes to other faiths and cultures, Goode is pretty much a racist.

    Most of all, I like Perriello because I believe he’s exactly what he claims to be. Republicans like Bush msy be quick to tell everyone how Christian they are, but Perriello walks the talk. For a politician, that’s rare indeed.

  • Some of us can imagine, one day in the future, an egalitarian society in which there is no poverty and humanity is living in relative harmony with themselves and the planet. Those who cannot imagine this are called Republicans, and they view people like Obama cynically. Because I can imagine this sort of future, I am 100% for Obama and the rest of the Democrats. Even if he can’t do it, a promise to share the wealth, bring back American jobs, and seek energy independence (something you can’t do if you’re in bed with oil or entrenched business interests) is a step in the right direction for our nation and the rest of humanity.

  • I agree with Waldo that it would be okay to endorse a candidate with no chance of winning, if it was for a matter of principle,like he said. A good example would be endorsing a third party candidate.
    But that was not the case with the DP endorsement of Gilmore. They want us to believe he is actually the best qualified candidate! Because of his stubbornness among other things.

  • I have just read today’s endorsement of McCain. It came as no surprise, I expected them to endorse whoever the Republican candidate was.
    But I didn’t expect the pandering to fears and bigotry by them saying that he would lead the country toward socialism.Something that rightwing extremists have been saying throughout the campaign. The Progress is getting as bad as its sister Media General paper, the Richmond Times-Disgrace.
    Like Lonnie,I too used to have a lot of respect for McCain. In fact until a few weeks ago I thought I would be voting for him. But his negative campaign, his choice of Sarah Palin,and the seeming abandonment of the principles he held in the past have made it impossible for me to do so.
    By contrast, Obama has run an effective, positive,yes,inspiring campaign. One that has won him the support of numerous Republicans and conservatives(Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley to name a couple).

  • But I didn’t expect the pandering to fears and bigotry by them saying that he would lead the country toward socialism. Something that rightwing extremists have been saying throughout the campaign.

    There are lots of fine reasons why reasonable people support McCain over Obama. Unlike supporting Gilmore, I think it’s quite sensible for folks to to support McCain. (Though I support Obama strongly, and I think it’s nothing short of tragic how McCain jettisoned his core values to get the nomination and then to get elected. I never agreed with him on much, but I respected him. Now it’s just the former.) But I quite agree that the reasons cited by the Progress editorial board are shameful fear-mongering without basis.

    The McCain message of “Obama = Socialism” only makes sense to people who haven’t the faintest idea of what socialism is. Since the bulk of the country really doesn’t know—they have no idea that Obama and McCain support precisely the same economic principles—they simply figure it’s true. The biggest step that this nation has taken towards socialism in decades came with the financial bail-out and related federal acquisitions of banks and AIG, all engineered by the Bush White House with the full support of John McCain. The paper even acknowledges that he voted for it, in their endorsement, but pretend that it’s something unrelated to their “socialism” charge. It’s a charge designed to target the ignorant, one that deflates with the slightest prod.

    What this endorsement tells me is either that the Progress editorial staff is ignorant of the nature of fundamental political ideologies or that they are willing to repeat a falsehood because it is politically expedient.

    The Progress could have cited a half-dozen reasons why McCain is a better choice than Obama, and nobody could have argued with their logic. These two reasons do not make that list. I cannot understand why they would do so. Bob Gibson used to have a hand in producing their editorials. Perhaps this is the result of his retirement from the paper.

  • “Warner has become the darling of Virginia Republicans, largely because of his solid business credentials, his centrism, and the work he did to balance the state budget.” I may be wrong but I thought Wilder worked to balance the budget and Warner just raised the sales tax.

  • Obama/Biden!
    I’ve become very impressed with Obama over the course of the campaign, and admire his intelligence. Genuine change, though he’ll have his work cut out for him given the mess after 8 years of vandalism by the Bush/Cheney goons. (is it impolite to say that?)

    McCain, on the other hand, has run a nasty campaign, and will usher us into a Flintstonian-democracy. I don’t even necessarily buy the whole-hog version of his war-hero story. Though I certainly appreciate his sacrifices… it doesn’t qualify him to be president and his craven choice of Palin is just surreal.
    Read the recent Rolling Stone profile to learn more:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

    [By the way, our Obama yard sign was stolen yesterday (NW Alb. Cty), though 2 Perrielo signs were left standing. A quick Google search (“stolen Obama sign”) and it seems to be an epidemic. Anybody else lost their Obama signs?]

    Vote for Perriello!
    Never met the guy, but as someone above says, “He’s not Virgil Goode.” That’s good enough for me this time. Goode is an ignorant mook.

    Vote for Warner!
    Warner was a good governor, and I like his positions. Gilmore is another tool of the troglodyte wing of Virginia Republicans.

    As for the Daily Progress, I gave up on that paper years ago. I seriously think it’s one of the least useful newspapers I’ve seen anywhere… poorly edited, badly-designed, expensive, and the often-disagreeable editorial page seals the deal. I admit that I do appreciate the weekly speed-trap location reports!

    Many smaller cities and towns have more-intelligently edited and written daily papers, and it’s shocking that an affluent, well-educated college town like C’ville is so badly-served… in my opinion.

    Their endorsement of Gilmore is a case in point. There’s no logical reason I’ve heard why any thinking person would vote for him.

  • I may be wrong but I thought Wilder worked to balance the budget and Warner just raised the sales tax.

    Warner made some really drastic cuts in the budget. They were not popular. (Remember when the DMV was only open four days a week?) Then the Republican-controlled house and senate raised the sales tax, because it was easier than dealing with the wrath of constituents, who were furious about the reductions in services.

  • I’m writing in Hillary Clinton, because the ‘my wife & daughter’s profited from her campaign’ quote Obama uses repeatedly clearly shows that he doesn’t understand that HE profits from her campaign. Until the guys do that, we won’t get where we need to get & I no longer care about the Supreme Court. I’ve been voting for the potential damage to the Supreme Court for years, to little effect; perhaps a bit of regression will result in real progress. It’s all so ridiculously over-due that I’m perfectly content to throw myself & my daughters under the hooves of the oncoming horses if progress is the result.

    Periello, Warner, else.

  • I don’t wish to offend you Elizabeth, but writing in Hillary is the wrong thing to do right now. Please reconsider.

  • Not to pile on, and with sincere respect, I’ll agree with ‘Cynic.’ This is not the time for tossing away a vote “in protest” when the possible result is another Republican administration. I think they call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    At least Obama values Hillary’s contribution, and does acknowledge her as both a noble opponent and for her enthusiastic support of his candidacy. If SHE can support him, why can’t we all? Besides, is basing a vote on gender any different from voting based on race?

    Yes, by all means, work to bring more women into the process. I began the primary season supporting Hillary myself, so I’m very sympathetic, but this is no time to be vindictive.

  • Also, it seems that Hillary is going to have a cabinet-level position in the Obama administration. A vote for her now could keep Republicans in office and Hillary out of a position from which she could make an enormous difference in the lives of Americans. One of the reasons our nation is so screwed is that we have had, for the last eight years (and many before), people running our government who don’t really believe that government itself should do anything (except in the case of war or controlling a woman’s right to what happens in her body during pregnancy). By contrast, imagine what a truly committed person like Hillary could accomplish. What if Obama puts her in charge of national health care, Elizabeth? Isn’t that be something worth voting for?

  • Only thing is, you can’t write in a candidate for President in Virginia(at least you couldn’t in previous elections). Suppose thats because you are voting for electors, not an actual candidate.
    As someone who went from Clinton to McCain to Obama I can see on the one hand how it might be tempting to cast a protest vote.
    But Hillary has strongly supported the ticket and not sat back and pouted like she could have done. I think she’d want her supporters not to toss away their vote in a symbolic gesture.
    Consider this. Votes for Ralph Nader helped give us George Bush instead of Al Gore. And the reluctance of Eugene McCarthy in 1968 to get his supporters behind Hubert Humphrey helped give us Richard Nixon, with ensuing results from which the country has yet to recover from.

  • If my vote says what I want it to say, then it isn’t thrown away. If I can’t write it in, I will omit to vote for president at all. The hubris of you people wagging your e-fingers at me is beyond ridiculous. I get to spend my vote as I see fit. Nader cost Gore the election? How about Gore failed to win? How about a vote shouldn’t have to be a toggle switch between an R and a D? This post asked a question of all of us and I’ve given my response. Chiding me for failing to agree with you does not in any way move me to ‘reconsider’, as though this weren’t something I’ve been profoundly considering for well over a year. I am sick of the false ‘choices’ we’re given and I’m not alone. All you need to do is look at the large percentage of undecided voters this close to election day and you’ll see a growing weariness with much of our vastly broken two party system. Look to yourselves and your candidates if your choice doesn’t win. I’m not losing anyone an election: they’ll have done it themselves.

  • apparently Elizabeth is angry.
    I thought the responses to Elizabeth were incredibly respectful & well done. But lets not sink deeper into the abyss of blame and recriminations by responding to E’s venom.
    And one can write in a vote- or we will find out tomorrow.

  • elizabeth, I have always thought that the only way things can change is voting for what you think is best. Perot gave the election to Clinton, but Perot was the one of the reasons we got a balanced budget.

    I will endorse the winner. Because even if my canidates don’t win and even if they do they have to govern. If Obama wins he is reminded of how Clinton screwed up his first two years. It’s not time to settle scores, it time to heal the nation and move forward.

  • “The hubris of you people wagging your e-fingers at me is beyond ridiculous.”

    What’s so wrong with people discussing other people’s voting rationales, especially when it’s done in a pretty civil manner, as here? Some people think you’re doing the wrong thing; what’s so threatening about that, and what’s so gravely improper about those people explaining why they think you’re doing the wrong thing? I mean, we all know you didn’t hesitate to wag your e-finger at people backing Obama during the Democratic primary.

  • “I’m perfectly content to throw myself & my daughters under the hooves of the oncoming horses if progress is the result.”

    In other words, “My roof leaks… I think I’ll teach my house a lesson by burning it to the ground.”

    This kind of “progress” leaves your daughters (and the rest of us) trampled/homeless/vulnerable to more Republican vandalism. Being “pro-choice,” I cheer your self-empowerment as a citizen to decide for yourself to vote or not, but your rationale exalts a sore-loser-ness that I think the folks here find hard to let stand unchallenged.

    Okay, Gore “failed to win.” So did Hillary fail to win. Obama won fair and square. His opponents now are McCain and Palin, not Hillary. Case closed. Anger that your candidate isn’t on the ballot is not a political position, it’s just… anger.

    Vote or not as you must, but no whining if McCain squeaks in because voters like you took their toys and went home.

  • McCain- Because I know what to expect.

    Obama- Too many unknowns, but gives great pep rallies.

    Should McCain win however, prepare for civil war.

    JC

  • Not that my “endorsement” matters, but I support McCain, Gilmore, and Goode.

    Although I like him personally, I don’t think Obama is ready. He has no foreign policy experience in a time when, I feel, we can’t really afford to have a president get on-the-job-training. I think Hillary Clinton was basically correct on this point. I also do not agree with Obama’s choice of running mate. Joe Biden is a gaffe machine, and was supposedly picked to shore-up Obama’s foreign policy weakness. But Biden has been wrong time and again on foreign policy matters. And neither has had much of a real job. Biden was elected to the Senate when he was 29, and has been there ever since. I’m not sure I want him a heartbeat away from the presidency. I think Obama is a bold, engaging politician, who may be ready in 2012 or 2016, but not now.

    That being said, I think Obama will probably win. Which is one of the big reasons I support Gilmore. I don’t want Democrats to control both branches of government. Mark Warner supports card-check legislation (as does Obama) which removes the secret ballot when determining union organization. And our (read: Obama’s) energy policy (including a LOT to do with limiting coal), would be better without a free pass in the Senate.

    Goode opposed the bailout, and so did I. Although a bit brash concerning illegal immigration, again, I want someone a little more proven than Perriello in these times. I agree with the Progress that Perriello would have been better as a local candidate rather than a national one. He’ll probably make it one day, but I hope it isn’t this year. Plus, I don’t like the creepy half-smile that he gives at the end of his commercials… like they left the camera on him a couple of seconds too long, and he didn’t know what to do. (Kidding, that it affects my vote, but I just thought I’d point it out.) :-)

    Wow… I wrote a lot. Sorry.

  • And yes, I know there are 3 branches of government… but you know what I meant.

  • I had a conversation with a gentleman from Mexico City last night, in which he claimed to endorse McCain because “He will continue the Bush legacy of embarrassing and destroying the US” — meaning, he was wishing for the worst out of some strange desire for international schadenfreude. Hard to tell exactly how facetious he was being, but I found it to be an interesting opinion nonetheless. Does anyone know how to say “schadenfreude” en espanol?

  • I thought Elizabeth’s last post was quite appropriate, and, although I can detect some frustration brought on probably by such a long process, I find her comments entirely reasonable. I really wish the primary system would be abolished and the various parties select their candidates behind closed doors. Even a college professor does not have to endure a year of re-sloganized ideas repeated ad nauseum.

  • I’m sure that plenty of conservatives find her post quite appropriate. In fact, though, making the right decision in a situation like this is what separates adults (who see the big picture) from middle schoolers (who can’t see beyond their own needs).

  • I’m predicting that the Goode-perriello race as very
    close. i live in the southern part of the 5th district
    (campbell County) i think if perriello wins he’ll needs
    Campbell,halifax,Danville or pittsylvania counties.this
    race might be the last one called. I’m supporting mark
    warner for senate and barack obama for president. i’m
    still out for the house. I’ll make my decision tomorrow
    morning at the polls.

  • For Gilmore fans (insert chirping cricket sfx here), a telling quote, as reported in the Washington Post:

    RICHMOND, June 8—Fairfax County Republican Vincent F. Callahan Jr., former chairman of the Virginia House Appropriations Committee and onetime ally of James S. Gilmore III, said he would announce Monday that he is supporting Democrat Mark R. Warner in the state’s U.S. Senate race.

    “Callahan said Gilmore, Warner’s GOP opponent, misled legislators and the public about the state’s finances and the cost of his signature effort to eliminate the car tax when he was governor from 1998 to 2002.

    “The figures Gilmore used were so utterly erroneous and far-fetched that they were mind-boggling,” said Callahan, who helped Gilmore push his car tax proposal through the House of Delegates in the late 1990s.”

  • Callahan just told me not to trust his judgment. Didn’t he realized the ramifications of taking away an alternate local taxing power, a greater reliance upon the real estate tax?

  • I think the DP actually only has two editorial writers now that Gibson’s gone. It’d be publisher and editorial writer Anita writing the editorials. Conservative republicans both.

Comments are currently closed.

Sideblog