|
"Perseverance
is the hard work you do after you get tired of
doing the hard work you already did."
-–Newt Gingrich
One
of the lessons learned from the June 14, 2005,
Republican primary election in Virginia is that he
who works hardest for the longest time still can
win against insurmountable odds.
Both
Michael Golden (41st District) and Chris Craddock
(67th District) won their House of Delegates races
with overwhelming victory margins.
In
the case of Craddock—a newcomer to the political
scene—his 66 percent margin of victory dealt a
humiliating blow to a two-term incumbet who
sported himself as a legislator extraordinaire and
ridiculed Craddock for his inexperience and
“radical” views.
In
the case of Golden, his 74 percent win over his
opponent—the pick of the Republican
establishment, which found Golden too
“extreme” for its liking—sent a clear
message to the moderating elements of the
Republican Party.
Golden’s
early candidacy announcement also sent the
liberal, long-term incumbent in search of greener
pastures where he could happily retire in pursuit
of his utopian dream of higher taxes and bigger
government.
Craddock
and Golden not only worked very hard, but they
started their respective campaigns more than a
year ago. Both ran classic grassroots
organizations, proving once again that primary
election battles are always won from door to door.
I
am not implying that the other five anti-tax
challengers did not work hard or didn’t wage
strong grassroots campaigns—they certainly did
that. But they did not enter the fray until
earlier this year. In one case, the challenger
didn’t announce his candidacy until April, too
late to overcome the many advantages of an
entrenched incumbency.
Even
though they hardly had enough time to get their
campaigns going, the challengers managed to send
some humiliating messages to long term incumbents.
In two cases incumbents held on to their seats
with less than 55 percent of the vote—an
embarrassing performance for veterans against
newcomers to the political scene.
We
shouldn’t forget the impact of the Democrat
crossover voting. Former Republican Party Chairman
Pat McSweeney estimates that in one District
almost 1/3 of the voters casting Republican
ballots were Democrats who had been urged by their
party hacks to vote for the Republican incumbents
(See: “Recapping the
Primaries.”
Defeating
entrenched incumbents is a hard business.
Nonetheless, the anti-tax challengers sent a
strong message that politicians cannot continue
campaigning as fiscal conservatives while
governing as tax-and-spend liberals without facing
primary challenges. One incumbent hadn’t faced a
challenge in more than 20 years, yet he barely
held on to his seat by a mere 4.8 percent
plurality.
While
examining the lessons learned from this primary
election, it is hard to ignore the actions of the
House and Senate leadership in support of the RINO
(Republican In Name Only) incumbents facing
anti-tax challengers.
To
put things in perspective, one should keep in mind
that the 19 Delegate RINOs who voted for the 2004
tax increase voted against their own House
leaders. In other words, they broke with the
Republican caucus and joined the Democrats in
voting for the largest tax increase in the history
of Virginia.
When
slapped in the face, most of us don’t turn the
other cheek. Yet that is exactly what the House
leadership did in the 2005 primaries—a
leadership that professed throughout the 2004 tax
debate that they were fervently against higher
taxes and bigger government.
The
House leadership, led by Majority Leader Morgan
Griffith and House Speaker William Howell, rallied
the troops in support of beleaguered colleagues
who voted for the tax increase and now faced
primary challenges.
That
is indeed odd behavior for two leaders whose very
own troops staged a mutiny against them last year
by abandoning the Republican caucus. It is akin to
testifying on behalf of an employee who
just robbed your store.
The
reasoning of the House leadership is truly mind
boggling, yet it is consistent with the total lack
of direction shown by these same leaders during
the 2004 tax battle. Speaker William Howell, R-
Fredericksburg, described himself as a firm
opponent of tax increases, but he permitted a vote
on a huge tax increase when all he had to do was
support a continuing resolution bill to avoid
shutting down the government. (Two such bills had
been introduced in the House and the Senate).
We
all know the Speaker is a pleasant gentleman, but
he has the responsibility of representing his
party's position. He should not allow his Senate
neighbor John Chichester, R-Fredericksburg, bully
him into an ever-expanding state government.
The
House Leadership and the re-elected delegates may
publicly say that voters spoke out against the
“flat earth” anti-tax candidates, yet none of
the incumbents campaigned on a message of
increasing taxes.
Fighting
a heated primary contest is not only expensive but
takes a lot of hard work—some of these long-term
political dinosaurs may have the money but lack
the energy needed to continue waging vigorous
campaign battles. They will now think twice before
casting a vote for higher taxes.
--
June 20, 2005
|
