Sep 18 2009

Creigh Deeds After The VA Gubernatorial Debate

Published by at 10:51 am under All General Discussions

I know that AJ does not follow the local elections as closely as he follows national issues, but I had to share this. Below is what Creigh Deeds, the Democratic nominee for Virginia’s next governor, said after the debate yesterday:

I agree with those over at Snapped Shot that if a Republican had made the comment

I think I’ve made myself clear young lady.

it would have ended their career. But other than that the video shows how Deeds has no plan if he gets elected. When Kilgore ran with no plan he was demolished by Kaine in the election. I can’t wait to see McDonnell come out on top!

14 responses so far

14 Responses to “Creigh Deeds After The VA Gubernatorial Debate”

  1. kathie says:

    The Republican can turn this into a really good ad.

  2. DJStrata says:

    I hope he does!

  3. WWS says:

    He seems incapable of understanding that the statements “I will not raise taxes.” and “We must raise $1 billion in new revenue!” simply do not go together. I suppose that does make him the perfect Obama democrat.

    When someone is so incredibly stupid that he really cannot see the conflict, then there’s no chance of having any kind of productive dialogue with him. Just get him off the stage as quickly as possible.

  4. Frogg1 says:

    I’m waiting to see if Maureen Dowd heard him say, “I think I’ve made myself clear, boy” before I decide if he is racist, too.

  5. Wretchard over on the Belmont Club has picked up on this thread of thought about the Right’s “buzzing hornets” of civic action driving Democrats/Lefties nuts.


    Wretchard sees that the Democratic Party/Left as having figuring out what it’s opposition consists of, but thinks that Umair Haque’s advice amounts to using faster appeals to higher authority to more effectively condescend to those masses of opposition plus hire bigger astroturfed crowds.

    It is nice to see that Creigh Deeds followed Umair Haque’s advice.

    Please note that Wretchard’s advice was that the Left needs to be more American, not condescending.

  6. Frogg1 says:

    Democrats have always tried to use ‘higher authority’ (usually self created) and astroturf. The difference is, this time the public is paying attention. They know real from fake. Conservatives/opponents have also taken a few pages out of Alinsky’s book (or pointed out the process in their opponents actions). Definately interesting times. But, the real challenge is the obvious…..

    this is trully a grassroots movement. I haven’t seen anything like this in decades.

    The Republican Party isn’t behind it. I’m not sure the Dems have a chance against that.

  7. Terrye says:

    That was excruciating.

  8. WWS says:

    That was a brilliant post of Wretchard’s, Trent, thanks for highlighting it. I have had that bookmarked for awhile, since that’s the most insightful analysis of what’s really going on right now.

    Haque appreciates the level of the conflict, but doesn’t truly understand it. Wretchard understands it, probably because he’s been part of the real thing before in the Philipines.

    ftp: “The Republican leadership was in fact the first victim of the revolt from below.”

    Brilliant point – the Democrat’s biggest error was in thinking that this revolution was in their favor, when it is in fact going to consume them next.

    I’m still not very sure that Republicans will take any long term advantage of this – rather, this may be one of those rare, exciting, and scary times when everything old shall pass away and be replaced by something new. No one knows yet what that could be.

  9. marksbbr says:

    Even Walter Mondale was more straightforward than Deeds is. Mondale openly said he would raise taxes. This guy, well he’ll lead you in circles.

    I’ve paid some attention to the Virginia race. If I remember correctly, McDonnell has been leading in the polls. If more Virginians see this, his lead will undoubtedly expand.

  10. Frogg1 says:

    Has it begun??

    Health Reformers Target Enemies


    The plan for a series of grass-roots demonstrations Tuesday to promote President Obama’s health care agenda calls for tightly scripted events and an “escalation” of efforts against “enemies” of reform.

    But Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and, organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan, which describes the demonstrations as part of its “insurance enemies project.”

    The document, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, details specific talking points, tactics, props and strategies to stage the protests. It lists goals that include action that “mobilizes our base by animating existing anger about private insurers.”

    The HCAN field plan dictates that each protest will include a minimum of 30 participants, target only health care insurers CIGNA, WellPoint and United Health Care and showcase what it calls “victims,” or people who have either lost insurance, can’t afford it or were denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

    The field plan says the protests should attract media coverage that “creates villains or enemies that serve as a contrast with our side; validates the need for affordability and the public health insurance option; [and] forces the other side to respond.”

    The protesters are instructed to confront top officials at the insurance companies and demand they sign a declaration titled, “Stop Denying Our Care.” ….

    The declaration concludes with a pledge not to “use any resources – including funds, employees and facilities – to oppose any aspect of the health reform proposals supported by President Obama and being considered by members of the United States Congress.”

  11. WWS says:

    Hilarious report, Frogg: on any political issue, when one side is trying to gain support for a proposal that is below 50% approval it is *suicide* for them to launch an attack based campaign. Why they can’t resist us that they’re used to being in opposition, and when the matter is simply one of opposition to someone else’s proposal, an attack based campaign is the preferred and easiest method. (Conservatives right now are finding out just how easy and fun that mode of attack can be)

    Why it is suicide for them in their current position: when you are trying to gain support and sympathy for your positions, attacks may make those who already support you feel good, but they will only alienate those who don’t agree with you, and they will energize a concentrated opposition from the target of your attacks. If your approval is already below 50%, you can *never* get a majority by just making attacks which are subtractional in nature. In this case, the insurance industry has been mostly on the sidelines, maybe even willing to cut a deal with Obama. But now, they’ve got absolutely nothing to lose, so these attacks are just bringing in another well funded and bitter enemy without bringing in any new supporters.

    Now of course in the long term an opposition can’t take power by simply being oppositional – and if by some fluke they do, they will fail miserably as soon as they try to govern, as the democrats are doing right now.

    However, there’s no need to run before you can walk. A party in opposition is probably best advised to first neutralize the other sides advantages and help magnify their failures to the public at large, and THEN once they’ve got the public’s attention they can start bringing out the more positive ideas. In this current situation, I don’t see any need to really work on alternatives publicly until next summer, in the windup to the 2010 elections. Til then, tis a free-for-all, cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war!

  12. crosspatch says:

    It is hilarious. The Democrats have a circular firing squad going. They spew out insults at people who disagree with them calling them Nazis and violent mobs, etc. These are the people they need to be reaching out to and trying to use persuasion, not insults.

    And they get even crazier saying they are going to unleash “hell fire” on people who “misrepresent” their positions. Fine. Where are they going to do that? If they do it on CNN or MSNBC or the alphabet broadcast networks they are only going to preach to the choir that already supports them. Obama, for example, is not appearing on Fox this weekend. The network that has more viewers than the others COMBINED is not going to see Obama’s message. All the people who already support him are going to hear it. Tactics such as these do not change minds.

    If Obama and crew want to change minds, they have to appear on places like Fox, take hard questions instead of fawning softballs, and have some kind of coherent dialog. Right now the Democrats have seem to have lost their ability for debate and persuasion. If they are asked a hard questions, a fast ball right down the middle, they get all emotional and start making accusations or attempting to demean the person who asked the question rather than give an answer.

    The Democrats are blowing it bigtime and I don’t think they even realize it.

  13. WWS says:

    Crosspatch – a couple of threads ago we were talking about whether or not coherent alternatives should be presented at this time. I think the best example as to why that should NOT be done (at this time) is what’s happening to Max Baucus’ health care proposal.

    Now I of course don’t agree with much of his proposal; but it’s the first time that *anyone* has tried to come forward with a serious proposal that might draw support from both sides. And look what’s happened to it already – Baucus is attracting nothing but condemnation for his efforts, *Especially* from the left! This is the kind of proposal that the Dems will *have* to support if they want to get anything passed, but already Baucus is being called a traitor and a fool for even thinking of putting anything like that out. (Jay Rockefeller was the first Senator to really rip it open, and now it’s open season)

    Do you think Baucus is going to be very happy about supporting anybody else’s plan once all his work has been treated so shabbily? Oh, he won’t say so, but it’s just human nature for him to just sit back from now on and grimly smile while the entire project collapses.

    A circular firing squad indeed.

    And dems thinking that sticking Mike Dukakis into the mix for 60 days is somehow going to make things better.

  14. crosspatch says:

    “Crosspatch – a couple of threads ago we were talking about whether or not coherent alternatives should be presented at this time. I think the best example as to why that should NOT be done (at this time) is what’s happening to Max Baucus’ health care proposal.”

    And I mentioned then that I agree with that for the most part. It isn’t the politicians I was really talking about, it was the people like the talk show hosts. If I want to hear Obama, I can watch CNN. I get tired of the talk shows replaying Obama sound bytes through the course of the show. If you listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and, say Sussman (local), you will have heard the same sound bites and same criticisms 4 times in one day. They do a better job of getting Obama’s message out to the center than Obama does.

    The talk shows should have a more forward looking format … what is right with the right instead of what is wrong with the left. It gets old after about the nth time you hear it in one day.

    I can listen to Limbaugh, can’t take much of Hannity, can listen to Levin depending on topic being discussed, generally like Brian Sussman, really like Hugh Hewitt, and can listen to Michael Medved. I also like Fred Thompson on the radio.