A Chance Encounter with Keith Fimian

I make it a policy to run with folks who are smarter than me.  It makes them feel good, and I learn stuff.  That’s why I was at the Vienna Inn, home of killer chili dogs, a few saturday’s ago having lunch and by sheer seredipity meeting putative GOP nominee in Va-11 Keith Fimian.

The table was me and some distinguished folks…a northern Va town councilman and his wife, a Vice-Mayor (and former congressional candidate) from downstate Virgina and his wife a former reporter and commentator for Fox News…plus me to make them all look really good.

As we dove into our dogs-n-chili-n-fries-beer-n-tea, up comes a fellow with a Keith Fimian sticker in the middle of his sweater.  He sticks out his hand, and introduces himself-it’s Keith Fimian, in the flesh!  We chatted for a few minutes, and then he flew away to mix and mingle with others.

I came away from the chance encounter with a few thoughts, as well as his Delta Tau Chi nickname…

KF Flyer is a very friendly man who does not shy away from answering difficult questions.  By the same token, he is not a  curious man.  It took him a second to recognize the name of my town council friend…and since my pal is a republican and is an elected official in Va-11, you might have thought KF Flyer might have made it a point to meet him already.  When he heard my other pal had been a congressional candidate, KFF didn’t ask him a single thing, like “when?”, “what district?”, “got any words of wisdom?”.  He pretty much ignored me during the conversation (which may be a mark of good judgement), but never tried to find out where I was from nor did he ask any of us what issues we were concerned about.

KFFlyer gracefully responded to a frowning gentleman sitting at a nearby table who said he hated “politicians”.  Our hero engaged him in conversation and left the fellow no longer frowning…but perhaps still not in love with politicians.  Must have been the chili dogs…

I don’t know that he is well engaged with the details of legislation.  He told of us of the need to allow more federal workers to telecommute, but did not appear to know that legislation is already in affect saying that fed workers of a certain type have to telecommute at least one day a week by 2009.  He told us that he had made his business a success by listening to his workers and what they needed to do their jobs better, and that we could make the federal government more efficient by asking federal workers what they need to do their jobs better.  It occured to me there is a slight difference between a company of indeterminate size with the bureaucracy that is the US government, but the man clearly has a dream.

KFFlyer came across as a nice, decent fellow who genuinely wants to serve and to do the right thing, but also as someone who better spend time getting up to speed on issues.  Being able to (apparently) get the GOP nod without a fight gives him the chance to get himself up to speed, and I hope he takes advantage of that time.

I came away thinking that the Va-11 race is not a lost cause for the GOP, but there is much work to be done, even one with a big campaign warchest like the KFFlyer has.  Moreover, he better hope for a really divisive democratic primary if he has a chance of winning in November.

The Hamlet of Va-11?

The WaPo says Tom Davis will conduct a press conference later this week related to his political plans for 2008.

My question is why have the press conference at all?

Before we answer that, let’s consider the path already taken.

It has been an open secret for many years that Tom Davis wanted to go to the US Senate, and would likely run to succeed John Warner. Then came Iraq, the rise of Mark Warner, the Kilgore spanking, Macaca, and a tough reelection campaign for his wife JMDD…a general decline in GOP fortunes. When John Warner actually announces he will retire, Davis is faced with a convention fight with former Governor Jim Gilmore and then a general election campaign against Mark Warner.

Speculation here, here, here, and elsewhere that faced with all this Davis will run for reelection in Va-11.

Congressman Davis has already said he will not make a definitive announcement of his plans until after the general election.

The WaPo also says that…

while he plans to talk to the media on Thursday about his political future, he has not made a final decision about the race

Then why have the conference?  I don’t understand the timing.

I do not think he will run for the US Senate-the convention vote scotched that idea. I also think Gilmore’s candidacy against Mark Warner will be so bad as to define the GOP base vote for a generation…of course, I have said that before and been called a “mouth breather” by an RK diarist for having the idea that someone other than Gilmore or Davis would be the best GOP candidate in 2008.

But again…the timing?

Why take the limelight away from General Assembly races? Why not just wait until after the 2007 election day as announced previously and state your intentions then?

The Machiavelli in me can find only indirect reasons for having a press conference this week:

a)  It takes the press spotlight away from the JMDD-Chap! race, minimizing publicity and following the turnout depression strategy in that race Davis has been accused of master minding; or
b) There is another candidate of similar ideological stripe who is considering getting into the race for the 2008 GOP nomination, but will do so only if he is certain that Davis will not be a candidate in that race.

To date Davis has always seemed to be in full control of his political plans, whether you agree with them or not. It is not like him to be Hamlet-like, and yet that is just what seems to be happening.

One thing I am confident of is that he runs for something in 2008. If Tom Davis steps down and heads for private industry, fine and good. Vaya Con Dios, mi amigo.

But if he, the incumbent, steps down and Va-11 goes democrat, I doubt he will have the credibility to return for a future run for a seat in either house of the Congress.  For an example of this in action, review the Paul Trible pull in 1988 and what happened to him a year later.

So what is going to happen on Thursday?

“To be, or not to be…that is the question.”

Bolling refuses Shermanesque statement, leaves draft open…

Virginia Lt. Governor Bill Bolling just released an announcement regarding speculation on his being candidate for the First Congressional District seat left open by the tragic death of US Representative Jo Ann Davis:

 “Over the past several days, I have received a great deal of encouragement from business and political leaders throughout Virginia and in Washington, DC to consider running for the United States House of Representatives in the First Congressional District.  I am deeply flattered by their belief that I would make a good Congressman and serving in the United States Congress would be a tremendous honor.”

“However, as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia and as President of the Senate of Virginia, my full attention is currently directed toward the upcoming General Assembly elections and doing everything I can to make certain that we retain our Republican majorities in the State Senate.  Given the importance of the position I currently hold at this critical time in Virginia history, it would not be appropriate for me to consider running for any other political office.”

Frankly, I expected something a little more Shermanesque from Mr. Bolling regarding.  There is a difference between:

a) I am not, and will not, be a candidate for Congress, and
b) “it would not be appropriate for me to consider running for any other political office.”

Color me cynical, but I don’t see that this language rules out responding to a “spontaneous” draft for the office…a tool that has been used by politicians of both parties for years to create the image that they are running not because they want to but in answer to a public demand. Bolling does need to stay in the Lt.Gov position, and as a party leader it would have been better to offer a definitive statement to remove himself from the mix completely.

I was really expecting something along the lines of “If nominated I will not run, and if elected I will not serve”.

Oh, those were the days…

Campaign Finance Questions…Do You Know the Answer?

Mark Warner announces his Senate intentions today.

Jim Gilmore and Tom Davis are waiting in the bushes somewhere up ahead.

In the midst of this I have questions regarding Senate campaign financing, because otherwise I am operating on assumptions…

I know that in the House of Representatives, you are on a two year cycle.  For instance, the 2008 cycle began the day after election day 2006, and funds raised between then and June 2008 are counted toward the “nomination phase” of the cycle, and funds raised after that are counted toward the “general election phase”, and the day after the election the process begins again.  Life is similar for presidential candidates, except they are on a four year cycle (for the moment, let’s gloss over federal funding, exploratory committees, etc.).  The current one began the day after Election Day 2004, and will continue until the nominations go out.  During those times, individuals are limited to a maximum of $2300 to a candidate during the nomination phase, and another $2300 during the general election phase.

If I have any of that wrong, please let me know.

My assumption was that the senate had similar cycles depending on which class you are in.  By that logic, the Virginia seat up in 2008 had a cycle that started in November 2002, with the nominating phase ending in June 2008, followed by a general election phase.

Question #1-Is that assumption correct?  Are Senate candidates working on a time frame that coincides with their electoral class, or does it coincide with the two election calendar of the House of Representatives?  Not Mario Cuomo brought this to my attention yesterday and said he thought it was the latter.  Why?  Because then Senators had only one bite at the apple for that cycle-individual contributors would max at $4600 for both cycles, but an ambitious House member gunning for the seat and facing no serious opposition could bankroll over three cycles, with contributors potentially being able to max at $13,800.

Next, both Gilmore and Warner launched Presidential campaigns, and closed them down. Both men had contributors, presumably under the same contribution limits as other federal candidates (nominating phase, general election phase, etc.).

Question #2-Can campaign funds transfer? If a candidate closed out a presidential campaign with money in the bank, can it be transferred to a Senate campaign?

Question #3-What are the Contributor Limitations?  Finally, are those who donated to said presidential efforts now limited in what they can contribute for the balance of the nominating phase?  Assume John Doe contributed $2,300.00 to the Gilmore presidential committee.  Can he now contribute to Gilmore’s senate campaign, or is he maxed for the balance of the nominating phase?

Now scold will likely post something about looking it up myself.  Yep, I can do that, and will if needed.  But I am hoping someone out there has these answers and can save me the trouble.

I imagine this morass of moving from state to federal election campaigns and back to a different federal election campaign is but one of the morass’ the candidates will have to pick through.  Tom Davis should have an edge here, as he has been raising funds under federal rules for years.  Gilmore and Warner won statewide races running under Virginia rules, which allow for about any kind of contribution except for corporate contributions.

Know the answers to these questions? Speak up!  Don’t be shy!  Share your knowledge with the world!  Make my life easier! 

TIA!

Jim Gilmore 2008? Wrong Man, Wrong Race

What follows is just my objective $.02 on a matter of not so impending public concern.

The Mason Conservative recently posted at his joint and at the New Sic Semper Tyrannis about a Jim Gilmore for Senate candidacy. TMC notes Gilmore’s perseverance, his tenacity, his ability to win when others count him out:

Republicans don’t seem to want him and Democrats relish the chance to bemoan him. And yet here he is, like a bloody DeNiro in Raging Bull yelling at Ray Robinson “You never knocked me down” over and over. He continues to survive, and perhaps even thrive under these circumstances. Jim Gilmore’s chances of a comeback are always put down, but here he is.

Ultimately, he reminds us:

Jim Gilmore is tough enough to withstand a lot, and has proven over and over that he is a survivor. Don’t take him lightly.

I agree. In fact, I offered a post similar to this when Gilmore announced his now discontinued presidential candidacy. At that time (January 2007) I wrote:

Jim Gilmore is a man who has never lost [a statewide] election. He knows how to build an organization, he is unwilling to concede defeat, and will not back away from a fight. Men with lesser abilities have won presidential nominations. He has yet to be The Prince, but he is certainly not a Poseur.

Ignore or belittle him and his candidacy at your peril.

I still stand by that-but it is due to that very nature of the man that I sincerely hope he does not receive the 2008 GOP Senate nomination.  This is not about the electoral terrain, ideological purity, past records or political baggage.  It is due to my take on the man himself.

Run for Governor in 2009? OK. Senate 2008? Not a chance. I would vote for him over Mark Warner, but only because Mark Warner has shown himself to be a political chameloen who is not to be trusted and who will raise taxes as a first resort. Jim Gilmore is not a chameleon-he sets his course, flies his colors, and follows his chosen path whether it leads him onto the reef or into safe harbor.

However, it is those traits that I think will make him a very poor US Senator.

I have said before that I think some people by their nature function better in the executive branch than in the legislative branch.  I suggest that Jim Gilmore is such a person.  He has a strong sense of what needs to be done, and does it.  Sometimes to his credit, sometimes not. 

Example-Gilmore seized on and expertly used ending the car tax as a killing issue in the 1997 gubernatorial election.  It was reduced 70% quickly in his administration, and there were agreements to push for the balance when certain economic and budget forecasts were met.  All well and good…then Gilmore decided the other 30% had to be had before he left office.  In doing so he broke agreements with legislative leaders, and ignored that the state was in the midst of a more than middling economic downturn as the dot-com bubble burst.  He had to have his additional 30%, when prudence suggested focusing on other issues.  Gilmore did not get his completed cut, and sowed bad blood in the budgeting process that is still there today.

An elected or appointed executive is fully empowered ay to push his/her agenda and  put it into affect.  That kind of description fits Jim Gillmore to a tee.  But a legislator has to be patient, working with others to craft legislation.  A legislator has to be able to get along.  To a great degree, they have to be able to play well with others.  I have not seen where this can be said of Jim Gilmore.  His public service has been one of executive positions…Commonwealth’s Attorney, Attorney General, Governor, Chairman of the RNC.  His never say die personality is indicative of someone who neither wants nor needs others approval, and suggests his true strengths are found when he is in a position where he can forge ahead and make things happen.

I don’t think Gilmore has the patience or temperment to be an effective Senator, no matter how much one might like him on the issues.  If he wants to reenter public life, let it be as a candidate for Governor in 2009, not for the Senate in 2008.  I don’t pretend to know his chances in either race, but I think the man will be more comfortable, and the Commonwealth served better, if he is in Richmond than if he is in Washington.

Pelosi Lives the LBJ Prophecy

After the Johnson landslide in 1964, the congressional democrats enjoyed astromical majorities.  President Johnson, a child of Capital Hill, called his folks together and said they had to get all their major legislation passed within six months, and their critical legislation passed within a year.  His aides saw the huge majorities, and asked why.  LBJ explained that a huge majority meant a wide variety of interests were represented in the Democratic caucus, and that sooner or later these differences would cause the huge caucus to splinter.

LBJ called that one on the head.  12 months later the legislative consensus, buffeted by Vietnam on the one side and competing domestic interests on the other, began to fall apart…18 months later members were running for reelection…and 24 months later the GOP had won back 47 seats and the huge majority was gone.

It seems Speaker Pelosi has the same problems with a much smaller majority, but on a different front.

Today’s Washington Post describes how Liberal bloggers are setting their sights on Democratic Representative Ellen Tauscher. Tauscher is from a California district next to San Francisco. Despite her high ratings from traditional democratic groups and her zero rating from the NRA, she is apparently not pure enough on the Iraq Fandango to satisfy Das Kos and others in the Ned Lamont wing of the Democratic Party.

The article suggests

The anti-Tauscher backlash illustrates how the Democratic takeover has energized and emboldened the party’s liberal base, ratcheting up the pressure on the party’s moderates.

The Kos is quoted in the article as promising:

“a vicious fight for her seat.” He’s often portrayed as a raving ideologue, but he’s really a savvy strategist; he has no problem supporting conservative Democrats in conservative districts, such as new Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.). But he sees no need to tolerate a DLC type in Tauscher’s district, where Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) received 58 percent of the presidential vote in 2004.

Later in the article Steve Rosenthal, founder of the liberal Working for Us PAC, is quoted:

“We’re not going to the Heath Shulers of the world and saying, ‘We want you to be more like Barney Frank”

I see…Kos, Rosenthal, and their lefty fellows have no problem with a conservative Democrat if that is what is needed to win a district, but in a district they see as liberal they think it imperative to take on a Democratic incumbent.

Well, that clears that up. Apparently it is not about representative democracy, it is not even about ideology, it is about pure power. If we need you to win a district, we will back you not matter what. Looks like Kos and DeLay have much more in common than many will admit.

It should be an interesting time for the Speaker as she tries to keep her majority functioning at the same time centrist members of her caucus have to protect themselves from bushwhackers in rive gauche portion of the party.

Read the article…if this piece is even half right, it shows that the Republican Party is not the only political party at war with itself.

If They Would Only Listen: Why the GOP & the Dems are in Trouble

I get that folks tend not to listen to me. I have great ideas, great concepts, but they are not everyone’s cup of tea. My wife is kind enough to listen, but heavily filters-and, frankly, rightly so. My boss listen’s half way, but typically doesn’t hear. My kids don’t hear me at all until the third time I say something.

Still, when you say something that is so clearly correct and the target is non-responsive…well, that is bothersome.

A year ago in the wake of the Kilgore 2005 loss, many GOP types were extoling the need for a convention to select more electable statewide nominees. I offered up this post rebutting the idea, and said:

“The real key to winning elections is parties that stand for something. The key lies with candidates who promise not just to lead but offer real and achievable ideas that will better the lives of all the citizens that candidate wants to represent and workable plans to make those ideas reality. The key lies with candidates who excite and motivate the party base to work and persuade the undecided voters to believe.”

The GOP clearly did not do this in 2006, and were further hampered in Virginia by an Allen campaign that found new ways to stumble. Compare George Allen’s reaction to the “macaca” incident to Michael Richards, who after a horrible racial epithet loaded run-in with a heckler in LA immediately went on David Letterman to apologize. This is right out of the Kennedy playbook-screw up, apologize immediately, cauterize the wound, stop the bleeding, and move on. Nonetheless, the reason why this was able to happen was because the GOP has lost its way and has moved far away from either Goldwater-Reagan convservatism or the cut government tenets of the 1994 “Contract with America”. Instead, the GOP was seen as being primarily interested in staying in power so as to keep power for the sake of having power. Exceptions like Frank Wolf scored comfortable victories in the face of a Democratic wave because they stand for something.

But the Webb campaign was not much better. While it was a tactical masterpiece of running a campaign and taking advantage of every opportunity, it didn’t really make a case for what the Democrats would do, only that they wouldn’t do what the GOP did. Jim Webb ultimately ran as not being George Allen or George Bush, and his lack of issue definition now has some bloggers wondering how complete his dedication to the Democratic Party is. At the national level, the Congressional Democrats are still a blank slate, and we really don’t know what they will do…even though after a campaign such as we just endured one might think that voters would be able to say with complete confidence what was going to happen.

Why is this the case? Because neither party really stands for anything beyond not being what the other guy is. There is no high level, guiding concept of what either party is grounded in. Both parties seek to protray the other as the sum of it’s most extreme parts.

I will say it here, and mark my words this statement will come true:

The first major party that is able to establish an identity for itself will run the table in 2008. It is not a matter of position papers, blogs, websites, study groups, or even individual legislation passed. It is a matter of showing the country a studied view of where the country needs to go, an explanation of how to get there, and a logical and unified concept of governance that ties it all together.

With that, Reagan 1980/84 type victories, even landslides. Without that, neither party can either hope to establish electoral dominance…or even effectively govern for the long haul.

Until they do this, the Republicans and Democrats are in trouble.