Jamie Radtke & Tim Donner Can’t Make Up Their Mind on George Allen
By D.J. Spiker | Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011 | Politics, VirginiaBy now the conservative hacks in Virginia have resigned themselves to the short-sighted and moronic campaign being run by the (media-driven but grassroots/poll support/name ID missing) ‘challenge’ of Jamie Radtke. The endless ‘George Allen is bad’ emails, talking points, press releases and other irrelevant nonsense have fallen on deaf ears in the grassroots, voters and active political media (RTD, WaPo and Pilot have papers to sell, so they’re gonna drive the Radtke message as much as they possibly can to drive and create a race, despite her being nearly in last place in reality).
Didn’t realize we’d have to include Tim Donner to that list.
Yesterday Radtke and Donner both linked and highlighted a politi-fact meter article ‘proving’ that George Allen had flip-flopped on ethanol policy. Allen had supported ethanol in a visit to Iowa in 2006 and voted for it in 2005 in the Senate. Now five years later, Allen has applauded the Senate acting to end ethanol subsidies. Radtke and Donner cried foul, and RTD’s Schapiro was happy to give them the microphone to do so.
Now step back and look at this.
George Allen, in the eyes of Jamie Radtke’s campaign (and now apparently, Tim Donner’s), is an establishment hack who has a dastardly voting record in the Senate, voting every which way wrong while he was there and absolutely under no circumstances should be let back.
George Allen corrects some of the ills of his past, seeing the light so to speak and regaining some of his conservative principles that led to one of the most successful governor terms in Virginia history, and corrects his position.
Jamie Radtke (and Tim Donner) attack George Allen for correcting his position.
So which is it?
Either his voting record is bad, or it isn’t. Because if he’s admitting his voting record positions in the past were faulty, and admittedly some of them were, and he’s attempting to correct it, then whiskey-tango-foxtrot people. Is it only bad when you can point out how bad it is? Or when he corrects it, that’s him fixing it, which takes away your talking point, so you have to point out now that he’s reestablished his conservative principles? But we can’t say that, so we’ll call him a flip-flopper?
George Allen was a great Governor and a decent Senator, according to recent polling. He has plenty to answer for in his voting record, and the voters of Virginia will hold him accountable to that in the voting booth. But when Radtke and company attempt to hold him accountable, and when he then holds himself accountable he gets attacked for doing so? There might be political opportunism, but at the same time the constituents of Virginia have known George Allen now for twenty plus years.
Radtke and Donner still have a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way to go with establishing themselves with Virginia voters. Yet we continue receiving news clippings and press releases, not about who they are and what they want to do (with the rare exception of Radtke’s eliminate Fannie/Freddie).
Tim Donner, it’s bad enough that I have to read press releases two, three times a week about the Radtke camp complaining about what George Allen did eight years ago. Please do not add to it. Her campaign has rendered itself worthless on its own. Don’t make the same mistake. From the outset, all we’ve heard is how bad George Allen is/was/will be. Radtke is a fiscal conservative, but then spends twice as much as she’s bringing in. Her poll numbers, already low, have gone nowhere. Tea Party and libertarian groups have washed their hands of her campaign. There are lessons to be learned from their ineptitude. It’s probably best not to repeat them.
You can’t have it both ways. Either George Allen’s voting record is horrible, or it isn’t. It can’t be horrible until he realigns his position with his original principles (people are allowed to do that you know) and then get attacked for not supporting the previous position that you criticized.
There continues to be a general thinking that the Virginia electorate is just stupid, and if only we can highlight every George Allen fallacy then we’ll open their eyes to who he ‘really’ is within these wannabe upstart campaigns. It’s an ignorance of Virginia political history and plain hubris to conduct a campaign in that manner. The man is the near-founder of the modern conservative movement in Virginia. He has plenty to answer for regarding his Senate record, and I’m encouraged that he’s beginning to do so. But the notion that ‘if we can just point out what he did wrong HERE’ repeatedly is going to swing the campaign in your favor is stupidity. Plain and simple. He has twenty-plus years of working for and with Virginia citizens, and no manner of ‘but wait, did you see THIS?’ is going to overcome that.
Only by standing on your own merits, your own platforms, your own ideas, your own thinking, your own record will you ever be able to make inroads with Virginia voters. Tim Kaine has national help coming, he doesn’t help from within the Republican party that you’re wanting to represent.
Get real, or get out.
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
23 Responses to "Jamie Radtke & Tim Donner Can’t Make Up Their Mind on George Allen"
This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you…
You’re attempting to persuade people that a POLITICIAN has had an honest change of heart. You’ve lost that battle before you’ve begun, even if it is George Allen.
Now, I see your point that Virginians are more familiar with George Allen, and that we shouldn’t conclude that one position change makes him John Kerry or Mitt Romney. It’s a logical argument but not very realistic or effective in politics. Even I’m inclined to see this move by Allen as political opportunism, and you know how I feel about Radtke and the rest of the field…
I think you’d be better off to just take this hit; admit that he flipped on this one. No politician is perfect and we all know that. It’s okay to admit that your candidate has a flaw, so long as you contend that they are still better than the alternatives (and even I believe that this mistake by Allen alone in no way makes anyone else a better candidate, especially Radtke).
Just my thoughts. Perhaps I need to stick around after all.
Chris, I think you miss the point.
It’s not really whether Allen changed his position on ethanol. He did. He’ll tell you that.
The point is however that Radtke, and now it appears Donner, have no other game than “George bad. Me good.”
Some thoughts.
When times are good, politicians and their constituents spend money with abandon, when times get tough, they cut back. Allen is like many other politicians from the 80′s, 90′s, and 00′s, times were good, markets were soaring, there was plenty of money around to spend, and because voters felt safe and comfortable they were mostly happy enough to spend money on all the warm fuzzy stuff that came before them. People generally supported increased education spending, building new stuff, increasing pensions, and yes even flaky stuff like ethanol. Allen isn’t the only politician out there who took “go along to get along” to heart, he supported all kinds of things that are not real popular right now, but you know what, so did voters! Allen may have changed his mind, but voters have too, what passed for reasonable yesterday is taboo today, that’s just how it is. Politicians are politicians, most of them only stay politicians if they pick their battles and keep getting votes, and being against stuff like ethanol was dangerous over the past two decades. It’s called “political expediency”. We get it. You don’t win elections telling voters they don’t have any idea what they are talking about.
That said, I don’t get why people think defending Allen somehow entitles them to drag Radtke and others through the mud, that’s just a pile of crap and I for one am happy to call it what it is. Radtke is a fine candidate, inexperienced yes, of course, but I’d take her over most.
You don’t have to demonize other candidates just to get yours elected.
I think there are legitimate reasons NOT to vote for Allen, prime among them is that he just spends too damn much money.
Ward,
Your comment about Radtke and Donner is exactly right. I just figured that went without saying.
Just curious- what might your reaction have been if the two candidates had gladhanded and congratulated Allen for his ethanol conversion?
Temporary,
There’s nothing in this article dragging Radtke or others through the mud. Their campaigns, on re otherhand, is an entirely different story. Jamie has been warned repeatedly what a disaster her campaign is becoming yet she continues following the advice of overpriced consultants. Regarding spending too much, last quarter Jamie’s team spent 2:1, for every dollar they took in they spent two. At his worst, GFA has never been so ludicriously bad.
I have no candidate. Likely I’ll end up supporting GFA, but I’m waiting for someone to differentiate themselves. Continuing to insult my and other Virginia voters intelligence will not make me vote for you.
Whit, we’d likely have posted that Radtke seems to finally have seen the light. That response would have been a far better one than the hypocrisy they demonstrated. I’d have welcomed him back (tongue in cheek) rather than use the poor judgement in insulting the original position and then insult the correction. Should have been executed far better, but given the (lack of) results so far from Radtke, no surprise at the ill-conceived result.
Temporary, you wrote “You don’t have to demonize other candidates just to get yours elected.”
That’s the whole point here. That’s ALL Radtke has done, and now Donner is doing likewise.
Sure, when you’re barely registering in the polls you have to take a swipe at the front runner. But in addition to telling voters why NOT to vote for your opponent, you have to tell us why to vote FOR you.
So far the other candidates, especially Radtke, aren’t doing that.
That’s a fair point and would have worked as well
Of course I can’t prove it but given the antipathy here towards Radtke, I think the attitude would have been to either ignore her or say “well what’s the point of her candidacy if she agrees with Allen.”
Chris, as amazing as it sounds, some politicians aren’t crazy liars who will say anything to get elected. Some of us get new information and we change our minds. Isn’t that what a good elected official is supposed to do? Change stances as we get new information or determine that a past stance isn’t the right one anymore?
This is the entire point behind DJ’s post – we box politicians into a corner and then complain when they try and get out.
We bash them for taking stances we don’t like. Then we call them flip-floppers if they change their stance. And we look at their campaign finance reports and say they only changed because they were bought off. Or we just say all politicians are liars. Or we question why they changed their minds and speculate.
What we never seem to do is take what they’ve said at face value.
There’s no way to win. And in that kind of game, the only way to actually win is to not play. That deters a lot of good people from seeking elected office.
I’m tired of it. Until proven a knowing, intentional liar, we should give our elected officials the benefit of the doubt. I do that with Allen, with Donner, Radtke and everyone else. I wish more folks would. This cynicism is a disease on the body politic.
Whit,
There’s many reasons after the last six months to ask what’s the point of her candidacy.
Her agreeing with Allen on something (they agree on 90% of issues) wouldn’t really be news. We just only hear about her complaining about six years of GFA’s record, nothing about his Congressional term or Governor term.
The ethanol issue is simple.
In 2006 it had the potential to help us off dependence on imported oil.
In 2011 we know it takes more energy to produce a gallon than we get from it.
Allen adjusted accordingly.
D.J. and Michael, I understand and respect where you are coming from but disagree with your core point.
Seriously, is there anyone here who really doesn’t know what Jamie Radtke is about ? //grin//
Jamie Radtke helped organize Virginia’s first TEA party convention and was a leader in the movement since the beginning. I think that anyone who knows that knows EXACTLY what Jamie Radtke is all about, certainly she clears most of it up during her speeches. Does all of her twitter traffic explain it ? I don’t know, I don’t watch it that closely, but I would be really surprised if anyone who follows Jamie Radtke’s campaign doesn’t know where she’s coming from.
I too wonder about some of Ms. Radtke’s positions, but for me it isn’t a matter of wondering where she would stand on cutting spending and things like that, all you have to do is listen to one of her stump speeches to figure that one out. The things I wonder about are the unknowns with regards to her stance on conservative social issues, she mentions them from time to time and I find that worrisome, I’d prefer if she just didn’t mention stuff like that at all. As far as I’m concerned any politician who is asked what their stance on abortion is should answer that the deficit this year is 1.4+ trillion dollars and they want to cut spending. Other things I wonder about in regards to Radtke really have more to do with Libertarian vs. Republican kinds of issues, the same kinds of questions that Roanoke had about her.
To whether Radtke should continue to take swings at Allen, I don’t know, there must be some belief that it will work or they probably wouldn’t be doing it ?? Allen is obviously trying to convince voters that he’s serious about cutting spending, etc, and I would imagine (?) that Radtke’s strategy is to simply hold Allen’s record up to remind voters how he has voted in the past so that Allen can’t win with smoke and mirrors. It seems like Radtke is simply trying to make sure that Allen continues to own his record.
Obviously Allen would be the better option against the progressive socialist candidate come general election time, but by then, he’s not going to get such a generous shake on his position changes, nor will he be able to so easily massage them. He’s going to need to get that straightened out now, not later.
Henry, ethanol never had the potential to ween us off of oil.
Brian, it’s always possible to see the light, but the economics of ethanol subsidies are so simple that it never would have taken a revelation to change one’s position. In fact, the only thing that has since changed is public opinion of ethanol subsidies.
“Henry Ryto June 22, 201120:04 pm
The ethanol issue is simple.
In 2006 it had the potential to help us off dependence on imported oil.
In 2011 we know it takes more energy to produce a gallon than we get from it.
Allen adjusted accordingly.”
BS. The energy balance NEVER showed any savings by using ethanol and even now with better technology it is still a wash. Ethanol will not help wean us off of oil, it helps wean us out of dollars for cunning politicos to finance their campaigns. The deal was that more cash would wash through corn industry hands and settle into supportice seantors hands for supporting it… It worked brilliantly! Allen said screw you Virginians, I’ll take the money.
Come on. Ethanol had been hyped for decades as a potential means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Not as a replacement, as a bridge to a new energy source.
Every president, from Reagan to Obama, has touted ethanol.
Yes, public opinion has changed, and that’s mainly because people have been studying and paying more attention to the issue. And we’ve got decades worth of experience with ethanol subsidies and the use of the fuel that we didn’t have when Reagan started pushing them back in the 80s.
Things change. New information becomes available. Stances change based on the new information. Cut these guys some slack.
Brian Schoeneman,
While George Allen is not apt to get my vote as long as Tim Kaine is in the race as the Democratic nominee, I am willing to cut him some slack on this issue myself.
Here in America we looked at what Brazil was able to achieve with sugar cane and figured we had a surplus of corn and could achieve the same result with it. Perhaps if we had not been quite so ambitious, it might have worked out. Some aspects of ethanol production might still prove to be viable. President George Dubyah Bush championed using Switch Grass for example. If we can put otherwise none productive acreage into production of biological materials such as these which do not require fertilizer, they still can be part of the answer.
Seaweed/kelp is another possibility. With global warming, we might see increased abundance of this type of material so perhaps exploiting this type of biological material for increased carbon neutral fuel still makes sense.
Brian, dude, my background with alternative fuels included an education from fleet trials and validation. We knew enough about ethanol, reported on it and the geniuses in government ignored the facts because they knew this was a means to win big money for their campaigns. We knew what we know now 15 years ago about ethanol. What changed was money.. money changed hands. Thats it. The technology has not changed hardly at all, it is just cheaper to build due to higher economies of scale.. And you know what? If you use Ethanol in E-85 vehicles as they were designed to they still do not last as long as they would if you use conventional gasoline.. even poor quality gasoline.
Harvesting crops aint cheap.. The overall energy balance from producing row crops to shiopping it to facilities then integrating then pipelining or trucking ethanol separately (it cannot be pipelined due to emulsification of separator fluids and other pipeline gunk) took all the advantage away and this was a known parasitic loss long before cunning politicos engineered a mean green cash machine out of the corn lobbyists.
It’s too bad we can’t find a fuel that is abundant, energy dense, stable in easily transported liquid form, works over a wide variety of temperatures, that creates the gas that plants breath when it burns, and while we’re dreaming it would be perfect if all you had to do was stick a pipe in the ground and pump it out like it was water.
Oh wait, that’s oil.
Well lookee there…another attack piece on Jamie.
This article is a load of …well, you know. It’s Jamie that is out in front of the critical issues confronting the nation, typically clearly stating her position. It is George Allen that has to be DRAGGED into taking a position. Perhaps if Allen wasn’t trying to play the middle of the road and avoiding taking a position, Jamie would have less to criticize. No….for me, I’ll take someone who tells it to you straight what’s on his/her mind. And I find it laughable that Allen is working on “regaining his conservative principes”. Umm, no thanks.
I’d love to know how many “tea party groups” you’ve polled to determine that they have abandoned Jamie’s campaign. Without numbers, you’re just making speculative assertions (and of COURSE you wouldn’t want to dishonestly drive an agenda to instill doubt in Jamie’s campaign….oh noooo, not you).
Thanks, but I’m comfortable right here, knowing that Jamie is a good principled candidate (that doesnt need to “regain” her principles) while watching you make a fool of yourself doing championship yoga to attack her.
Well, say what you want. The poll here on BD went from George Allen winning to Jamie Radtke winning. Even if that is all the activist rounded up for Radtke, sorry but that is at minimum an increase of voting activist. And using tactics you disapprove of.
Hillarious to see more *cough* sincere “advice”. This time to Donner. Lol, too funny.
The only good advice here is that for George Allen to say, yes, I flipped flopped. I made a mistake.
So, Donner and Radtke SHOULDN’T take oppoortities to get press by jumping on that and also harp on his past record which totally stunk.
AndDJ, he was a great governor. You are right there. A “decent” senator? Give me a break! As a senator he completely sucked! Plenty of evidence of that.
DJ, show me an employer who does not take prior work history into consideration. The state of Va should be no exception. Self absorbed politicians should not be given a pass either.
Actions speak louder than words. When Allen was serving as senator he was anything but consistent.. He lost when the illusion that he was a Jeffersonian Conservative failed him. Arguably, the Democratic-Republican party Jefferson founded in 1793 and the current Republican party, founded in 1854, bear no resemblance to the Republican Party of today…
So.. If actions and words carry weight, Radtke is the Tea Party conservative Republican and Allen is the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican. Which is better? You decide.
Repost, Jamie is not a good candidate. She isagood individual but in running for office has one of the worst campaigns in the last decade thus far. Six month and $150,000+ spent for 4%? it ain’t working. You might be comfortable, but youre losing to Allen, someone not running and a little-known attorney from Virginia Beach.
Britt and Turbo, thanks for getting back to the article
Britt, Radtke and Donner pushed HARD for poll turnout, including direct messages to contributors of Bearing Drift. I could care less about straw poll turnouts, I don’t care who wins. I can vote a dozen times on a cell phone. As for the adivce, every poll number has shown me to be right, and the current direction Radtke’s people are taking as wrong. Donner should do the exact opposite of everything Jamie has done thus far. I want a spirited debate for the nomination, and the constant, never-ending ‘GFA did THIS’ coming from Radtke’s camp is not a spirited debate. It’s monotonous, single-track and quite clearly NOT working. The wasted potential of that campaign is astounding. It’s genuine advice. It’s worth noting, but it won’t be. And Jamie will be made out to be a charicature by the time this is over, which is a shame. There’s been plenty of red flags, but no change in the direction (off a cliff)
Turbo, point to where I’ve ever said his record or experience didn’t matter? I’ve never said ignore or bypass or even give him a pass. But the single-track focus on his Senate record isn’t working, he’s been around for too long and too many people know him and his record (all of it, not just the six years in the Senate) as for deciding, everything so far shows that voters are overwhelmingly breaking for Allen. That’s an indication that the current campaign plan isn’t working with plenty of time to salvage things. Instead, it’s more of the same.
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.