8th Senate Race is Disturbing Preview for 2nd Congressional District Nomination
By D.J. Spiker | Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 | PoliticsAs the 8th Senate District race between Jeff McWaters and Virginia Beach Councilwoman Rosemary Wilson runs further off the rails of legitimate campaigns and into a mudslinging contest from both sides, the stage is being set for a very similar nomination fight that will come on the heels of this special election, for the 2nd District. Given the rapidly deteriorating environment in the 8th, there is every reason to believe that the 2nd District nomination process will be just as disturbing, if not more so.
The fight for the 8th is important, but largely for show. Republicans are now guaranteed to retain the seat, largely in part to Democratic stupidity (expecting John Bell to win as Sheriff as an excuse to not worry about fielding a candidate? Really?!) With retention for the party a foregone conclusion, every opportunity should be pursued to keep this a civil and legitimate campaign.
Unfortunately, since even before the seat was available, the primary process has been ugly. McWaters kicked off the absurdity by posting campaign signs around the area, with the pathetic excuse of ‘name recognition improvement’ as validity. McWaters’ campaign then proceeded into sign wars with Wilson’s campaign at events, including rumors of tampering at a Maureen McDonnell event in Virginia Beach.
Now that we’ve proceeded into an official primary battle, the candidates and supporters from both sides are dredging up negative information, church info, abortions, tax increases, Obama-Care and other trivial nonsense that has nothing to do with representing the 8th District in the State Senate. None of it matters, campaigns should be run on issues, particularly this campaign that we are assured of winning. Instead, both sides have spent time and energy tearing the other side down and I fear it will only continue to worsen over the next two weeks. That does not bode well for the 2nd District nomination fight.
We’ve already seen our comment sections light up at any reference to the 2nd District. Consider the arguably two top tier candidates for the nomination, Scott Rigell and Ben Loyola. Consider that much of McWaters’ campaign team is affiliated or assisting Rigell for Congress. Consider that Loyola’s campaign team has many of the same parts as Wilson’s. Much has already been said in the last three days about McWaters and health care, ipso facto supporting Obama; much will be said about Rigell writing a check in support of Obama during the primary. My biggest concern is that in the race to unseat Nye, an underdog campaign by Loyola will consist more of ‘scorched-earth’ and win at all costs strategy rather than a legitimate debate on issues, contrast and credentials.
Toss in X-factor Scott Taylor’s dark horse candidacy as well as Kenny Golden and Ed Maulbeck, who will have nothing to lose but everything to gain by tearing down Rigell and to a lesser effect Loyola, and we’re in for a repeat of this poorly waged 8th District race. Ironically enough, the Democrats remain in disarray there as well, with progressives demanding a more Democratic candidate, while conservatives will certainly not support Nye, giving us a tremendous opportunity to take back the 2nd, again in large part to Democratic stupidity. (on Nye’s part and the left’s)
Yet almost assuredly given the staffers and consultants in place, we’ll spend our time bickering and blasting church memberships, tea partiers, donation checks, volunteerism, who helped elect Bob McDonnell more, what constitutes true conservatism, birthers (there is a candidate who is NOT convinced Obama is a US citizen) and other trivial crap that in no way effects elected office or determines who should hold it.
At a pivotal time in the Commonwealth, with the wind at our backs, instead of uniting and growing our party by debating the issues that matter and the issues that govern us, we’re spending our time tearing the party apart from within with derision and divisional tactics. Times like these are where Bill Bolling’s sacrifice becomes that much more apparent; avoiding a drawn out primary pitting conservative against conservative, he stepped aside for the party and the greater good. While certainly none of the five or six candidates will be stepping aside (although some should, i.e. Chuck Smith, Ed Maulbeck, Bert Mizusawa), we should follow the example of true leadership and avoid the negativity and mudslinging. We’re conservatives first, Republicans second.
“somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy.”
McWaters, Wilson, Rigell, Loyola, Taylor, Golden, Smith, Maulbeck and Mizusawa need to plaster that quote to every desk in their headquarters. Yet assuredly, these words of wisdom will go ignored, and the Virginia Beach Republican Party and 2nd Congressional District constituents will be that much worse as a result.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...entrenched on the right as a member of the Establishment, proudly tattooed member of the Republican Party, bartender by trade serving both sides the libations needed to continue the debate and discourse. College student, ten years late, majoring in Public Policy and Administration with an eye to serving the conservative and Republican movement in the public or private sector. ducit amor patriae You can find D.J.on facebook, Twitter, or contact via email at gosport.conservative@gmail.com. You can find D.J.on facebook, Twitter, or contact via email at gosport.conservative@gmail.com.
Comments
29 Responses to "8th Senate Race is Disturbing Preview for 2nd Congressional District Nomination"
I could not agree more with what you wrote, a much needed call back to the issues. Thankfully, Bob McDonnell has set a wonderful example for the 2nd district race and I, like you, hope they will follow in his footsteps.
One thing I disagree with – “consider that much of McWaters’ campaign team is affiliated or assisting Rigell for Congress”. No one on McWaters staff is working for Rigell. Their media/advertising/direct mail/consultants people aren’t even the same. Jeff and Scott are friends, but their campaign teams are totally different.
Reid,
I must disagree with you somewhat–McWaters and Rigell have run as a virtual “ticket” from the start, even going as far as McWaters appearing in a campaign video for Rigell on his website.
J.R.,
I couldn’t agree with you more about negative campaigning. However, I believe you and I have a different opinion on what negative campaigning consists of. Exposing somebody on a legitimate campaign issue IS NOT negative campaigning. To date, I have yet to see the Wilson campaign bring up anything about Jeff’s church stuff–I believe you started that thread on your blog and then the responses took over.
The only thing I have seen the Wilson campaign hit McWaters on is his stande on mandated health care, and that is certainly a legitimate campaign issue at the moment. If Obama’s health plan is passed it may include an opt-out provision at the state level, so we need to know McWater position on the issue, and at this point his spoken words that I personally saw at the VB Breakfast twice now, don’t match up to the written word that he sent out as his official response.
Thank you for your time.
The Dems excuse for not running someone before Bell lost is called common decency. You can’t in good faith try and run for a seat without stabbing someone of your own party in the back. If this situation was the other way around no Republican would announce, because if they did they would be instantly branded a traitor.
I also think its funny that you assume everyone is going to go negative because…wait you don’t have a logical reason, you just think Scott’s a shoe in and that negative campaigning is the only way to win.
Loyola will implode himself unless he fires his consultants. Taylor will do his thing, he won’t go negative, Maulbeck won’t either. Kenny will probably just pretend everyone else doesn’t exist.
Compare the resumes, Rigell owns a car dealership, Loyola maybe has a handful of flight hours and owns a business, Ed was a seal, so was Scott.
Kenny commanded the biggest fleet to leave the west coast since the Korean War, hes got 3 at sea commands, 10 years day for day at sea, 5,000 flight hours, has managed a budget larger than the city of Chesapeake, was in charge of legislative affairs at the Pentagon for 4 years, and did a fellowship at Oxford. Hands down he is the most qualified. It’s a matter of getting the message out, not attacking Rigell.
Yes, he sounds just about as well qualified as Joe Bouchard. That did not stop the national blitz krieg of irrational swift boat ads. Not to say that is only a republican phenomenon, but regretfully, in politics today, it has little to do with inteegrity or competence, it has to do with money and degradation of ones opponent, no matter how qualified that opponent may be.
Agreed, Joe Bouchard is by far the most qualified person on paper I have ever seen run for office, but he did make some pretty outrageous ads. We’ve only had one president with a PhD, Woodrow Wilson, and that is very sad.
Qualified people raise taxes and lose re-election. News?
You must have missed the part where I said, “On paper”
If you were interviewing for a position and you put Ron Villaneuva’s resume next to Bouchards, there would be no comparison. Bouchard has a PhD from Stanford(?) and Commanded the biggest Naval Base in the world. I’ve never met him in person, so he could well be an empty suit, but on paper he sure looks better than any other candidate I’ve seen put forward (not including Kenny)
I am so glad you said, “Consider that Loyola’s campaign team has many of the same parts as Wilson’s. Much has already been said in the last three days about McWaters and health care, ipso facto supporting Obama; much will be said about Rigell writing a check in support of Obama during the primary. My biggest concern is that in the race to unseat Nye, an underdog campaign by Loyola will consist more of ’scorched-earth’ and win at all costs strategy rather than a legitimate debate on issues, contrast and credentials.”
Ben is such a nice guy. I would hate for him or any Republican to be tainted by a “scorch the earth” team. This approach is not what I want to represent the Republican Party.
Jeff McWaters is the most quailifed person to ever run for office in Virginia Beach. Jeff is not a politican he is a businessman who is active in his community in every aspect and now he is wantign to serve his community in a different way and stop Government takeover of healthcare. Jeff has devoted his life to trying to make healthcare more afforadable for middle class familes and he has done just that, by creating AMERIGROUP, and by doing that he has created over 5000 in 14 different states with over 2000 of those right here in Virginia Beach. I would ask you to join me and many others in supporting Jeff McWaters for Virginia State Senate. http://www.JeffMcWaters.com
Good point Kathy. That is why I support Scott Taylor. He won’t go negative, will talk about the issues, and best represents the 2nd district. I am concerned as you are about the negative campaign that will take place and hurt us as a party.
I absolutely hate the fact that two of my favorite people in the world are in this race. One is like family, the other is not as close but more qualified.
Gosport:
I too dislike seeing us tear each other up in a primary particularly for things that are poorly researched and sometimes incorrect. It is nice to focus on issues but often the current issues are not the ones that will eventually play out during the tenure in office. So we are compelled to look for “predictors” that give us an indication as to where the candidates’ hearts are. Weltanshauung is key. If we can learn that, then we will know who to vote for. The problem is finding that out is difficult if we limit ourselves to traffic and taxes. We need a more effective tool. Hence, the hot button social issues.
I disagree with your premise that some of these matters are trivial or are not important as they don’t apply currently for state level office. There are certain core issues for our time that have profound impact. Slavery was one such issue in the 1850-60s. Today for example the right to life is a central issue and the way a person comes down on that is a tremendous indicator on where they will stand on a host of other issues. In fact it may be the number 2 indicator after church participation or lack thereof, which political scientists have shown is the best indicator of where a person is on a great many issues. Tell me a candidate is pro-abortion and attended Rev. Wright’s church for years and that is all I need to know and then I can tell you where he is on healthcare, the war on terror, individual liberty, 2nd Ammendment, sexual perversion and tax policy. It is easy, accurate and more effective than party identification which frequently disappoints both conservatives and liberals. It is not just conservatives that understand that. Liberals immediately go after anyone who isn’t pro-abortion as they too know it is a “litmus test” for other issues.
So while abortion is not a state level issue, how the candidates feel about our right to life is very important as it gives us a window into their souls and fortells how they may vote on other unrelated issues.
Let’s talk about the race of the 2nd District with Scott Rigell, Ben Loyola, Scott Taylor, and Kenny Golden. Every single one of them is above and beyond highly qualified and exemplary. Of course Kenny Golden has a longer resume and track record, Scott Rigell is a businessman that has friends in high and powerful places that is well known in the area, both Scott Taylor and Ben Layola have led a life worth following, all of them have as a matter of fact. The only one I know personally is Scott Taylor who goes to church at The Wave. He has been a major influence on my son Nathan. Kenny Golden is a good friend and according to his resume, more qualified than any of them. If I go by your tool Dry Viking, I have no idea if Kenny goes to church or not. Does that mean according to your “Weltanshauung ” tool I should support Scott Taylor because he goes to a good church and maybe ignore someone who has had more experience that may not go to church?
By the way, I love the Lord and go to church.
Scott Rigell has so much support right now I think it may already be a loosing battle for anyone else. That is how I see it from the outside. I just don’t want it to get nasty.
I suppose we should all just play nice, have a sing-a-long, and not hold people running for office accountable for their thoughts, actions, and proposed policies. How about we remember that they serve us, not the other way around. Elected officials serve the constituents and Republican electeds serve the GOP as well, we DO NOT serve them.
I don’t want the government forcing mandated healthcare down my throat and I don’t want someone who was naive enough to think Obama wasn’t a threat when he’d won over 30 primary states to represent me in Congress.
This McWaters/Rigell ticket of no-accountability, do whatever they’d like and still demand public office needs to be stopped.
Wilson HAS to win the Senate race and ANYONE BUT RIGELL! in the 2nd. Otherwise we just show the grassroots that a few doddering electeds and power brokers decide what happens in government, not the people.
This is not my America. The Founders fought and bled for what they believed in and here we have people whining that things may be getting nasty when real issues are being discussed.
Is that you Aaron?
Master Chief,
I laughed when I read what you wrote. But because not everyone, including yourself, knows Scott Rigell like I do I feel like I must say something. Describing Rigell as “no accountability, do whatever he’d like and still demand public office” is really quite a ridiculous statement. I mean, could you exaggerate any more? Demand public office? Voters decide everything, no candidate can demand public office. Rigell is one of the best examples of accountability I know.
Also, McWaters and Rigell are not a “virtual” ticket! They are friends and McWaters has endorsed Rigell and vice versa but to say they are a ticket is nonesense. You do not know what you are talking about. Just because you endorse someone does not mean you are a ticket. How silly.
I don’t care that you won’t be voting for McWaters or Rigell, but don’t say things that simply are not true.
If this site required people to use their real names there may be more responsible and respectful blogging. But as we all know, some are simply not capable.
General Elections are about issues…primaries are about personalities!
KM, I fear that you miss my point. I am not telling you who to vote for.
I am merely saying the there are certain issues which have nothing to do with qualifications but are great predictors of how someone will vote on things once in office. It just so happens that political scientists have discovered that church attendance, or not attending church, is a great predictor (real activity not just showing up from time to time), much better than party affiliation. The particular church is important too as there is a big difference between a reformed, conservative or orthodox Jew or a Presbyterian who attends a PCUSA church vice a PCA church.
For example, if you are a liberal, you will probably be happier with a Republican who doesn’t go to church at all or is an Episcopalian than you will be with a Democrat who is a deacon in a Southern Baptist Church. There are however, certainly many people who are nominal Christians or Jews and only attend on occasion and this doesn’t apply to them. For them you look at other issues like abortion which are almost as accurate as church attendance in predicting where they are on other issues.
There are, of course, exceptions, Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy come to mind when it comes to church, one a Southern Baptist and one a Roman Catholic, but both supported abortion. So the point is that these things are the most accurate predictors of what a person really believes and what he will do in office, but they are just that, predictors not guarantees. But we have found that party affiliation is a lousy predictor, just look at Scazzafava or Spector et al.
None of this has anything to do with qualifications or competence, which you seem most concerned with. But quite frankly, competence and qualifications aren’t our problem in either Richmond or Washington. Nancy Pelosi is well qualified, competent and unfortunately quite effective. It is what they are voting for that is the problem.
Kathy,
If Scott Rigell wasn’t so principled, he could run away with this race, fortunately that is not the case. Scott is the kind of guy who couldn’t live with himself if he didn’t make this race as positive and issues oriented as possible. Sadly for Scott, hes going to find that hes way out of his league when hes on stage with someone as experienced as Kenny. If I were Rigell, I’d either be spending all my time knee deep in books and research or I’d be figuring out how I could live with myself while running a personality based campaign.
First I will address Dry Viking. My background is I am a born again Christian, (can we say that in a political blog?), and I agree with you. I want Godly people representing me with the values and character of Christ. I am very concerned about anyone who does not value all life God has given. We must protect the unborn. What would be wonderful is to have real experience with great godliness. That would be my choice.
As for the rest of the blogs, the lines have already been set in the sand for everyone who has posted except for me quite honestly on this race (in the 2nd district)because I really don’t know all the candidates except for Scott Taylor and Kenny Golden. With godliness I have to go with Scott and with experience I have to go with Kenny with the candidates I personally know. The others I know through my personal friends and my involvement in the Party, but not a personal relationship where I really know them.
Jim, I’m the biggest fan of Reagan there is, but Reagan used his 11th commandment in a primary against a liberal Republican in 1966, then quickly forgot it in 1976 while bashing Gerald Ford and his policies. Reagan ran against a sitting President of his own Party. In 1980, as an odds-on favorite, he found the 11th commandment again.
Let’s be a little bit real.
Brian,
That is a good point and I was reminded of that as I was typing. I know full well that President Reagan used it to his advantage. I was and am speaking as to what the 11th Commandment SHOULD be regarded as. It is still the better path to travel. I can disagree with other Republicans and I can still not tear them to shreds with negativity and subjective, opinion based banter and rhetoric. I know as an elected official from talking with hundreds of Republicans and Democrats that we are SICK and TIRED of negative based campaigning! That is a fact and that is reality. If we as the GOP want to continue to be elected to serve the ENTIRE community we have to follow the McDonnell model and run on the issues and run on a positive vision. Anything else will lessen our Creed and weaken our message.
Thank you Jim. This past election when I went door to door, I can’t count how many people told me they were sworn off politics because of all the nastiness. Even my neighbors who know me and know I am very active in the Republican Party told me they can’t tell the difference between the parties because all of them are just as negative. It’s hard to change people’s mind when unfortunately, they are right.
Happy Thanksgiving everybody!!!! I am thankful we still have the freedom of speech, the freedom to vote, and the freedom to disagree if we must. Blessings!!!!
Kathy:
You are absolutely correct. I look forward to seeing us capture many races in the 2010 election in the cause of liberty. I too am not yet sure how I will vote but it definitely will be for the conservative candidate who hopefully will be the Republican.
Have a blessed Thanksgiving and remember those who are in the CENTCOM theater giving us this opportunity.
Guys and Gals,
Here is a honest question. When you discuss someones record. When say candidate “X” did x, y, and z is that really negative. Is it about tone or what? I base my statements on facts. What is negative about that. Now maybe the fact is negative but that I can’t help. Isn’t the primary process where we are supposed to test our candidates and put them to the fire. We have a massive responsibility here as the “People” in “We the People”. We give power to these folks they should be tested and tried. Jeff and Rosemary are going to have a position of power where they can change the lives of people for better and for worse. We need to look at their previous opportunities to do so and what did they do. It is about character and integrity. We need to hold them both to the highest of standards. What did they do in those moments of decisions where there was a right choice and a wrong choice, a easy choice and a hard choice. This is how I would want to be judged and I think any of you too. Debate about and testing of our leaders is a founding principle of America. Its not any politician that has the power in this country but the people. Jeff, Rosemary, and anyone else who runs for office is asking to work for me and for YOU. Never forget that. Would you go ask for a Job but tell the interviewer that your questions about your resume are negative and really don’t pertain to how I would do the job for you. I don’t think so.
That being said I am thankful today for our country where it’s still allowed (For now it seems) to question our leaders and take them to task for their actions. I’m thankful for the men and women in uniform who defend that right. I’m thankful that the power in this country is still with the people and not the politicians.
God Bless America!
I figured someone would chime in with “words of wisdom” in regards to the validity of negative campaining. Did I at anytime say anything about not “testing our candidates and put them to the fire?” I am talking about the mudslinging, the “digging” on the Internet to find dirt on someone and the mentality that it has to be ugly to be real. That is what has to stop. We need for our candidates to stand for what they believe in and speak as to how they would help solve problems at our local, state and national level. Of course they can defend themselves if attacked unfairly and of course they can compare and contrast. That is Campaiging 101. What I am referring to, once again, is that the focus should be on the candidate and not the “mud”. But there are some who enjoy digging the “dirt” and debasing a race to the point that it turns everyone off and depresses turnout. That is not how campaigns should be run.
Now this is a good article! Well written with a core message wrapped in President Reagan’s 11th Commandment – “Thou shalt speak no ill of a fellow Republican”! That premise is as effective now as it was then. If we truly want to re-build our GOP into THE Party of the future – for Virginia and for our Nation – we MUST return to our RPV Creed. We must exercise fiscal restraint, promote peace through a strong national defense and continue to push for a free enterprise system that is ruled by common sense. That is how we will continue to lead and win…
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.