The Hunt for Scapegoats, Part II

In an article written Sunday, Tyler Whitley acknowledged the intense debate between moderates and conservatives in Virginia’s Republican Party over why Jerry Kilgore lost the gubernatorial election. Quoting an “angry e-mail” by campaign manager Ken Hutcheson — calling Phil Rodokanakis with the Virginia Club for Growth a “spineless, gutless coward” — he also alluded to “a column written by Rodokanakis” that accused Hutcheson of running an unprincipled campaign.

(An aside: Note that Phil’s column appeared in the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine, the Bacon’s Rebellion blog published Hutcheson’s letter, and much of the internal GOP debate has taken place on this blog. But Whitley did not see fit to mention us, as if the entire controversey had occurred in a vacuum. From now on, we are adopting an editorial policy of not attributing any of Whitley’s writings to a particular media outlet. He is simply “a reporter” who writes “articles.” As a courtesy to our readers, however, we will link to the source material.)

Most of the Whitley article is a rehash to anyone who has been following the debate on this blog, but he does quote Ken Hutcheson and former Gov. Jim Gilmore as making an interesting point — a point that I had not sufficiently appreciated when I criticized the Kilgore campaign the day after the election for having failed to make an issue of the “Warner/Kaine” tax increase. “Without criticizing Kilgore, [Gilmore] said the candidate ‘was in a sense a victim’ of the Republican legislators who voted for the tax increase in 2004. ‘He could have made his position [against taxes] clearer, but he was trying to hold together a party with different viewpoints.’”

Whitley also quotes Hutcheson as follows: “To make taxes the centerpiece of our campaign would draw attention to the fact that Mark Warner had peeled away a lot of Republicans, not only in the legislature, but all across Virginia. It would have been difficult for us to have maintained a good deal of Republican support and working relationships because so many colleagues and friends had supported it.” (The problem was especially acute for Hutcheson, who was close to Senate Finance Chair John Chichester, R-Northumberland, a co-architect of the tax increase.)

Indeed, Kilgore found himself between a rock and a hard place. He was put in the position of papering over a horrendous divide inside the Republican Party. Those divisions were not of his making. Indeed, there is no indication that the divisions are likely to fade any time soon. The same chasm could well confront the next Republican to run for governor four years from now.


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

19 responses to “The Hunt for Scapegoats, Part II”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Not unlike the divide Mark Earley faced being on the ballot in 2001 after the House and Senate went home without adopting budget amendments. The Republicans divide and the Democrats decide.

    Gee, how do we determine which position has more validity with the voters? Could Governor Warner’s 70-80 percent approval rating be a clue? Could the fact that the House Republican Caucus has now lost six suburban (five in Northern Virginia) seats in the past three elections be a clue? Could the fact that a Hilary Clinton clone almost got elected our lieutenant governor tell us something?

    It isn’t a matter of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic — some of you think that the rising water is just an illusion!

  2. JamesRiverGOP Avatar
    JamesRiverGOP

    Steve Haner is right. As I’ve said before, until the GOP learns that it must be smart about its nomination processes, the R’s will continue to come up short. It’s fine and dandy to nominate hard-core conservatives in hard-core consertative districts. In swing district, where commonly accepted demographics suggest independents hold great sway, the local GOP units must nominate moderate Republicans who’ll appeal to the general electorate in November.

    House Republicans are incredibly tone deaf. If they found themselves more in line with the Gang of 17 and less hitched to its tunnel-visioned “leadership,” then suburban voters might have been more discriminating on Nov. 8, where they have split their vote between Kaine and the House R as they did between Kaine and the down-ticket R’s. Such would’ve given Albo a bigger, more comfortable victory; Mason would’ve done better (and “may” have pulled it out, albeit the tidal wave would likely have kept him under); and certainly Marrs would’ve gotten past even his bone-head remarks.

    As Virginia continues to see its suburbs grow, the GOP will have to present themselves as the pro-investment party when it comes to education and transportation, amnong other core services.

  3. Actually, Jim, Waldo Jaquith and Shaun Kenney were out of the gate with the Hutcheson letter a day before it appeared on this website.

    As a courtesy to your readers, it would be helpful for you to note that BR was neither first nor exclusive in the discussion of this matter.

  4. Will Vehrs Avatar

    JamesRiverGOP, I’d amend your prescription to be the “smart investment” party. Just spending more money does not equal leadership or policy success. I think that’s a comment Kilgore made that he might have been able to do more with.

    As to Norm’s media point–he’s right. I saw Whitley’s reference as a shorthand so he would not have to list all the blogs where the issue was discussed. I don’t think he was trying to shortchange anybody.

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar

    I have amended the original post to avoid making the claim that Bacon’s Rebellion was the first blog to post the contents of Ken Hutcheson’s response to Phil Rodokanakis. My apologies to Shaun and Waldo for the error.

  6. Kilgore lost the suburbs because he focused on issues that did not matter to suburban voters. Each and every day people in NOVA, Richmond, & Tidewater get up and sit in traffic for 40-minutes to an hour each way.

    People may live in places like Winchester, Warrenton, or Fredericksburg but they work in major metropolitan areas like DC or Richmond and they have a two-hour trip each way.

    One thing I think the Republican party overlooked is that many people who live in the exurbs (areas beyond the suburbs) but work in suburbs and closer to the bigger cities actually vote like a traditional urban voter. These voters want their roads fixed and they are willing to pay for it. They want good schools and they are willing to pay for them. The death penalty is not a priority to them and they are turned off by terms such as, “Too liberal to be Governor.”

    Kilgore’s scare tactics, his negative campaigning and his avoidance of the real issues is what cost him. “Hutch” and crew truly believed that they could ride this one out with their “base” and win. One alarming thing I fear is that the folks who are in charge of the party are looking at the results saying, “well at least we won two out of three statewide races.” I beg to differ. You lost one and you almost lost the other two.

    The same chasm could well confront the next Republican to run for governor four years from now.

    The next Republican to run for Governor can easily overcome the divide in the party being a moderate. People in the mold of Early, Gilmore, Kilgore, etc. need not apply because the results will be the same.

    The Republican party in Virginia needs to nominate candidates who understand what it is voters want. Voters want the best roads, the best schools, and the best healthcare system and yes, they are willing to pay for it.

    Finally, this is not all Ken’s fault. Has anyone spoken with Scott Howell, Kilgore’s ad guy?

  7. Well, if moderate and conservative Republican want to know why he lost, here is one data point. I didn’t vote for him because of his negative campaign and because he was captializing on marginal issues.

  8. criticallythinking Avatar
    criticallythinking

    It’s always nice to the the moderates come out and tell us that what we need are more moderates.

    That is in fact one way to solve the problem — get more moderates to be republican. Then the moderates would have a clear majority and we could win elections and get legislation that a majority of the republicans supported.

    But to suggest that, in a party that is 2/3 conservative, that we should chose nominees who will vote against the republican base much of the time, just isn’t that satisfying. If conservatives want representatives who will vote to dissappoint them, we can just have democrats. At least then it won’t be our fault.

    Now, more seriously, a strong, even a radical, conservative can win an election. Because you can be a strong, radical conservative and still have appropriate focus on transportation, such that you have ideas that sound like they will make things better.

    You can be a strong, radical conservative and provide strong leadership on ALL of the major issues, and in fact provide REAL solutions to the problems we face (since the conservative/limited government viewpoint happens to correspond well to reality, solutions based on this philosophy will work better than the false solutions offered by liberals under the ‘moderate’ heading.

    And maybe we can’t win this election. But in time, as the people see that Warner/Kaine/Chichester et-al do not actually HAVE real solutions to our problems, but are just throwing money at us hoping to buy our votes, the solutions offered by true conservatives will start looking pretty good.

    Kilgore offered little in the way of a defense of those principles, offered no plans or solutions based on those principles, and therefore could not rally independents to the party, and could not rally his base to himself.

    I’m sure the moderates disagree with me, and that is fine. We can argue the point. But I just wanted to disabuse people of this notion I see forming that being “moderate” or “conservative” is a campaign or election strategy. If our party starts picking “hard conservatives” and “moderates” based on the makeup of various parts of the state, we will lose elections, and will deserve to lose elections.

    People do not have the answers. They are looking for the LEADERS to provide those answers. People are “moderate” only in the sense that they think that’s a good place to be, in the middle. If you convince a moderate that his city, state, and country will be better off granting amesty to illegals, he will vote for you. If you convince him that deporting illegals is the answer, he will vote for you. He’s looking for answers.

    Conservatives believe they have the answers. That is what makes them conservatives. They aren’t conservative because they want to push bad policy or failure — they truly believe that, if properly implemented, their ideas will make our lives better.

    BTW, liberals believe this as well. But for the most part, their ideas have been tested and found sorely wanting. That is why, in a state like Virginia where people have a strong sense of ethics, values, and family, the conservative message resonates (while in states where the voters have been trained to look to others to take care of them, liberals do well).

    Think of this more as a starting point for a different kind of discussion, than a blanket assertion of fact. I believe that a real debate on conservative principles has been sorely lacking for the past two years.

    To give an example — Who cares that so many republicans voted for a tax increase. It is clear now that, unless we really DID need to spend billions more than we said we NEEDED to spend in 2004, the tax increase was unnecessary. I should think a good republican, even one who voted for the tax increase, would appreciate the logic of saying that accumulating 2 billion in surplus is NOT what they had in mind when they voted for a tax increase.

    Kilgore needed NOT to attack people for the vote, but merely to point out that it wasn’t needed, and explain how he is going to NOT just increase spending by another 2 billion dollars. But since he seems to have wanted to spend all that money, why would he have said this?

    And why would anybody call someone who has a plan to spend a 2 billion dollar “surplus” a year after everybody agreed to a budget that “appropriately” funded all our needs a CONSERVATIVE?

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    “the GOP will have to present themselves as the pro-investment party when it comes to education and transportation, amnong other core services.”

    You can echo that here.

  10. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Well said Criticallythinking. Investments = taxes. Why vote for a tax and spend Republican when you can get the real deal in a Democrat? Ideas motivate human kind. Conservative ideas espoused by Conservative leaders win. Even in NoVa.

  11. Salt Lick Avatar

    … here is one data point. I didn’t vote for him because of his negative campaign and because he was captializing on marginal issues.

    Ray, I agree with both your points, but voted for Kilgore as the best of two bad choices. Surely, there must have been positive reasons you went with Kaine. Don’t know you, but you come across in your posts as too smart a guy to cut off your nose to spite your face.

  12. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    Glug, glug, glug – the water is up around the wheelhouse.

    Twenty years ago, when he didn’t know he was advising a future Republican activist, I remember Baliles campaign manager Darrell Martin drawing silly diagrams to illustrate the lesson that the guy who draws the bigger circle wins.

    The trick on the Republican side is to find candidates and issues who can communicate with both the moderate conservative and neocon wings of the party and get them all in the tent. Reagan did it, in Virginia Allen can do it. Neither slashed spending enough to satisfy the hard liners. Both proved very practical in dealing with legislative majorities of the other party. The trick is also for a majority at least of both camps — right and center right — to recognize that they need each other to get past 50 percent, at least when the D’s have an attractive choice on the field. From its very beginning this has been a party that can only win when it remembers what its founder said about a house divided against itself. Smart man, Abe.

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Below is the best description of the Republican Party I have seen in a long time.

    It comes from Margaret Edds.

    “Over here, you have your worker populists; over there, your country-club elites. Over here, your hands-off-me libertarians; over there, your police-the-bedroom moralists. Over here, your starve-the-beast anti-taxers; over there, your compassionate-conservative spenders. Over here, your boardroom types; over there … well, you get the idea.”

    Full article: http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=95700&ran=120283

    That’s a big tent folks.

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    As a Democrat, I have to say that the wisdom that Kilgore didn’t make taxes more of the issue strikes me as false. First of all, he did. His theme throughout the campaign was that Kaine will raise your taxes. Have you forgotten the decoder rings, the mail pieces, all the ads on Kaine being a voracious taxer? From this we are supposed to take that Kilgore avoided the issue? Come on. Yes, his Hitler ads overshadowed the issue in the public narrative… but there’s something else worth considering too.

    Every time the political debate turned to actual policy, Kaine came out on top. It’s no wonder that Hutch and his people spent so much time rooting around for a social issue to take off with, even bizarrely near the end of the campaign. They knew what a lot of you seem to be denying: that taking on Warner’s tax increase was a loser. On the contrary, there was no issue we wanted voters to be thinking about more. Every time the budgetreform/taxhike came up, we cleaned up. That debate was a winner for us, not a loser. First of all, the budget reform = Warner, a loser issue for Kilgore. But second of all, policy issues, leadership, making hard choices: all of those are issues on which Kaine simply dominated Kilgore. If the race would have stuck to budget reform/taxincrease, I figure we would have won by an even bigger margin, lacking the folks the Republicans pulled off with the DP, abortion, and other hot-button issues. There are just plenty of moderate Rpeulbicans who just need a reason to vote for a principled moderate Democrat. We love having chances to pic up those sorts of voters.

  15. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Steve Haner: Please note your words,”Neither slashed spending enough to satisfy the hard liners”, for Reagan and Allen. As opposed to “Both increased spending that would shame drunken sailors.” Now, where do we find some of those moderate spending slashers?

  16. criticallythinking Avatar
    criticallythinking

    3:08 Anon: You make my point.

    The reform/tax increase was a winning issue for Kaine. It reminded people of Warner, who they loved. It linked Kaine to Warner.

    But Kaine was making that point again and again. Kilgore ignoring it didn’t make it go away. What Kilgore needed to do was to convince people that the tax increase was NOT the best thing that happened to Virginia in the last 4 years. Or barring that, at least convince people that, in light of the outcome of billions in surplus, we needed to take a different direction to keep our government from bloating so much that in the next downturn we have to raise taxes again.

    Meanwhile, I saw as many commercials from Kaine telling me Kilgore would raise my taxes as I saw Kilgore saying Kaine would raise my taxes. And that is a DIFFERENT issue than taking on the 2004 tax increase and huge budget surplus.

  17. Salt Lick:

    You are right, I could not support Kaine, either.

    NOTA

  18. Anonymous Avatar

    Well, yes, criticially: we did run a much better campaign than you did. But aside from that, Kilgore never would have been able to convince people that the tax hike was bad, for several reasons. First of all, it was synonymous with Warner, and attacking it directly would have meant taking on Warner. Most people, especially independents and even a huge chunk of Republicans like Warner. They saw his budget take as being moderate, and in the light of his previous budget cuts and management decisions, just more of the same wise decisionmaking from a good guy. Overturning that image just wasn’t something Kilgore et al could have ever done. Especially when a good chunk of the Republican party had voted for it. Second of all, voters just aren’t that convinced by your surplus argument. They know that first of all, the budget surplus is neither relatively huge nor a permanent source of revenue. Quite frankly, when everyone knows that we have huge transportation projects that will require permanent sources of revenue to pay for and that the surplus is barely a blip on the radar in comparison, they just aren’t impressed by the Chicken Little routine, especially when the surplus is from a booming economy.

  19. Opposition to the tax hike would have been a winning issue for a candidate who actually opposed excessive spending and excessive taxing. Kilgore was not that man.

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT