KAINE VS ALLEN QUIZ & 7 things to watch for as Allen, Kaine square off in Virginia’s U.S. Senate debate 19JUL12

TIM KAINE D VA debates george allen r VA this Saturday 21JUL12, and I hope many will watch, I know those who do will decide to support Kaine for the US Senate seat from Virginia. allen's support of the ryan budget proposal is enough reason to support Tim Kaine, it shows allen's controlling interest are anything benefiting the 1%, the wall street, bank-financial cabal and big coal and oil executives and not the common people of the Commonwealth or the nation at large. You can take a quiz to find out the differences between Kaine and allen, that is followed by the Washington Post article on the debate....

 
Come November, Virginians have a choice between two candidates with starkly different records -- Tim Kaine and George Allen. They'll have the chance to contrast their views this Saturday at the first debate of 2012, but many Virginians are already familiar with their records.

Click here to show much you know about the difference between Tim Kaine and George Allen's records.

On one side, you've got Tim Kaine, who governed Virginia with distinction during the worst economic downturn in generations. On the other, you've got George Allen, who used his term in the Senate to get us into the fiscal mess we're building our way out of. The contrast couldn't be clearer.

How well do you think you know the differences between Governor Kaine and George Allen? Well, now you can find out. We've put together a short quiz -- do you think you can get 100 percent?

Click here to take our quiz now!

Mike Henry
Campaign Manager 

 
Yesterday, Mike asked you to test your knowledge of Tim Kaine and George Allen -- and their respective records -- with a quick quiz. Now it's time for the second round.

If you didn't do so well last time, this is your chance to try again. And if you got all of the questions right, it's time to see if you can maintain your average. Either way, I challenge you to show how much you know.

Which candidate has a record of true fiscal stewardship? Which one puts partisan politics over people? Which one has focused on investing in Virginia priorities like education? It's all in the quiz.

Click here to take the second part of the quiz now!

Mo Elleithee
Kaine for Virginia

 

 

Contact Us  | Facebook | Twitter

Paid for by Kaine For Virginia

Contributions or gifts to Kaine for Virginia are not tax deductible.

7 things to watch for as Allen, Kaine square off in Virginia’s U.S. Senate debate

By Anita Kumar and Ben Pershing

Republican George Allen and Democrat Timothy M. Kaine will face each other Saturday in their first debate following the primaries in Virginia’s marquee 2012 U.S. Senate race.
The will debate at the tony Homestead resort near the state line with West Virginia.
For weeks, the two candidates have been preparing for the face-off, which is sponsored by the Virginia Bar Association. David Hallock, a top aide for Sen. Mark R. Warner (D), has played Allen in mock debates, while Richmond lobbyist Chris Nolen has been standing in as Kaine.
The race — considered one of a handful of contests that would determine the balance of power in the U.S. Senate — pits two former governors against each other. Allen defeated three lesser-known candidates to win his party’s primary last month, while Kaine ran unopposed.
It is the second debate between Allen and Kaine, who have been deadlocked in polls for more than a year in a race to replace retiring U.S. Sen. James Webb (D).
Here’s what to watch for in Saturday’s debate:
1. Differences over health-care ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision may be three weeks old, but it’s certain to remain relevant through November.
Allen has said repeatedly that he wants to be “the deciding vote [in the Senate] to repeal Obamacare,” and he may face more questions now about how he would replace the legislation if it is repealed. Kaine supported the law when it passed and praised the court for its decision.
Now, both candidates could be asked whether Virginia should accept federal funds available under the law to expand eligibility for its Medicaid program.
2. The Obama-Romney effect
Given the importance of Virginia to the presidential race, Allen and Kaine could be asked to weigh in on the issues dominating that contest.
Allen could be queried about GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s tenure with Bain Capital, and about whether Romney should release additional tax returns.
Kaine could face questions about the Obama campaign’s controversial assertion that Romney might have committed a felony by incorrectly filling out some financial forms regarding Bain. And the Democrat could be asked about President Obama’s remarks on whether entrepreneurs build small businesses on their own or with help from the government.
3. ‘Macaca’ alert
Six years after Allen lobbed what some considered a racial slur at an Indian American campaign staffer for his then-Senate campaign opponent, the issue keeps coming back.
Allen has apologized repeatedly for the remark, saying he has learned from the experience. In their first debate, Kaine said he gave Allen credit for apologizing, but he also said the apology had fallen short because it was part of a pattern for Allen and “part of the divisive politics that we’ve got to put behind us in this country.’’
Allen may be asked about the issue again or Kaine may be asked if it matters anymore.
4. Jens Soering’s case
Kaine has been questioned repeatedly about his handling of the case of convicted murderer and former University of Virginia honors student Jens Soering.
Soering, the son of a German diplomat, was convicted in Bedford County of two counts of first-degree murder in the 1985 killings of his girlfriend’s parents in a case that made international headlines.
In one of his last acts as governor, Kaine requested that Soering be allowed to serve time in his native Germany. But in one of his first decisions, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) reversed that decision.
Kaine has said Germany, not Virginia, should pay for Soering’s incarceration. But Republicans have continued to hammer Kaine for failing to explain his reasons for requesting the transfer.
5. Debate packaging
Kaine, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Allen, a former senator, have both had considerable practice with debates and public speeches, though Kaine is considered by some to be the more polished debater. Kaine appeared more relaxed in the first debate while Allen seemed more rattled. In an apparent gaffe, Allen seemed not to understand how birth-control pills work.
Both candidates are looking to be aggressive in their first debate since the general election campaign launched, but also calm and conciliatory. Expect a lot of smiles.
6. Defense cuts
Unless Congress and the White House strike a deal by Jan. 2, the Pentagon — a key economic engine in Virginia — will cut more than $50 billion in spending.
Allen, like many fellow Republicans, has sought to blame the impending cuts on Democrats, imploring them to help approve legislation that would stop the cuts. A majority of Republicans in Congress, and in the Virginia delegation, had voted for the deal that could lead to the cuts.
Kaine has said he wants to “keep pressure on Congress to do their job” by striking a broader spending agreement, rather than just protecting against cuts in defense. If spending cuts happen, he wants the Pentagon to decide how to implement them.
7. Expiring tax cuts
Allen and Kaine will probably be queried about the looming expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts, a subject on which they disagree.
Kaine differs somewhat with Obama on this topic. While the president has called for allowing the cuts to expire on all income above $250,000 per year, Kaine wants to move the bar higher, to $500,000. But both generally agree that tax rates on the wealthiest Americans should go up to help reduce the budget deficit.
Allen, like most Republicans, believes that all the tax cuts — which he supported when he served in the Senate — should be extended, arguing that any increases could hurt a still-recovering economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/7-things-to-watch-for-as-allen-kaine-square-off-in-virginias-us-senate-debate/2012/07/19/gJQAnjTywW_print.html

 

Cable News Debate Coverage Is Hurting Democracy 15SEP11

"Wisdom cries out in the street; in the squares she raises her voice. At the busiest corner she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks: 'How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?'"
- Proverbs 1:20-22
Chuck Todd likes to occasionally refer to the political press as "the refs." While at first glance it appears to suffice, it's actually just another bad euphemism in a growing list of hackish politics-as-sports metaphors intended to deflect criticism and exculpate the news media when it clearly fails to effectively hold accountable our elected officials. I'm not sure if Todd and the others realize that "the refs" both diminishes the role of the press and abrogates its responsibility to the public.
Whether it's print or broadcast news, the press is the only industry specifically named in the Bill of Rights, preserving for history the founding mandate that the press remain independent and unconstrained as a means of checking government power. Consequently, an unrivaled degree of integrity is required to fulfill that mandate. The ability to remain objectively segregated from political influence and coercion, not to mention the whimsy of the public, isn't an easy task, but, in deference to its inclusion in the Constitution, a degree of professional discipline beyond what's found in other professions is crucial in order to adequately serve democracy.
Perhaps it's an overly idealistic expectation, but, in pursuit of the truth and with the goal of informing the public, journalists, editors and reporters ought to make decisions in spite of and divorced from what happens to be popular with readers and advertisers. Unfortunately, ratings, ad revenue and acquiescence to conservative misinformation appear to be dictating what's aired.

Put another way, if the framers of the Constitution had watched CNN's Tea Party Republican debate Monday night, they might have reconsidered their priorities. I'm not sure if "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of games shows" would have made the cut at the convention.
And that's exactly what CNN put on the other night. A game show. The cable news media has gone from simply cracking gaming and sports metaphors to actually becoming a game, with politicians as the contestants and a rotating guest panel of snickering propagandists and "analysts" as the judges. The only difference is that contestants on traditional game shows are held accountable when they answer incorrectly -- they're penalized monetarily or eliminated from the game altogether. But our cable news game show hosts just move on to the next question, so, in this regard, Wink Martindale might be a tougher moderator than Wolf Blitzer.
I'm not sure if CNN knows it, but nearly everyone across the political spectrum thought the CNN presentation of the debate was ridiculously self-satirical -- a laughing stock only rivaled by the Fox News debate several weeks ago. It's almost as if the producers and planners were deliberately attempting to air something that Jon Stewart would definitely mutilate the following night (he did).
The telecast opened with what appeared to be a movie trailer for the debate, and then segued into Michael-Buffer-meets-Alex-Trebek introductions for each candidate, with a jive disc jockey announcer presenting bios for the participants complete with, yes, nicknames. Newt Gingrich, for example, was "The Big Thinker" and Rick Santorum was "The Fighter." I'm not sure what this served to do, and I have no idea why CNN chose to give everyone simplistic titles, but the McDonaldland rogues gallery of nicknames (which candidate was "The Hamburglar"?) made the list of usernames in World of Warcraft seem super serious by comparison.
Even the stage itself was designed like a game show set, only this one looked like Captain America's bathroom if Captain America had projectile vomited a series of CNN logos everywhere. By the halfway point, I thought they were going to wheel out glass booths where the candidates would scramble to grab up a thousand dollars in "free cash", accompanied by questions from Blitzer with the setup, "One hundred tea party people surveyed, the top five answers are on the board, and here's the question: Name five clues proving that Obama wasn't born in the United States."
This is all to say that people don't watch debates for the stupid handles or flashy gimmicks. They don't watch to find out whether Herman Cain likes thin crust pizza or if Newt Gingrich watches American Idol (these bits of pointless information were revealed during the aforementioned the Fox News debate). The only positive development in the modern era of political debates is the viewer participation through social media, but those features are only sparingly employed, and, when they are, they're not really taken seriously by anyone involved.
Short of that, the cable news networks are hurting democracy.
The post-debate coverage is easily where the most egregious hurting takes place. Even if the debate itself is an abomination and nothing of substance is accomplished, the cable news networks have infinite broadcast resources (ostensibly 24 hours a day and seven days a week, save for MSNBC's inexplicable prison rape programming), which they can exploit for the purposes of fact-checking and analyzing the candidates' policy proposals. Here is where the networks can live up to their mandate by explaining whether Rick Perry's health care plan will actually work, rather than elaborating upon the style with which he talked about it. They ought to explain whether Ron Paul's libertarianism conflicts with his acceptance of Medicare benefits and pull back the curtain on his shallow Randian cult worship. They ought to explain whether Mitt Romney's economic plan will expand the economy and create jobs in a more effective way than the current administration policy.
Rather than jibber-jabbering on and on with canned zingers about who won and who scored the most points or who "closed the deal", the appropriate role for cable news in the post-debate segments of the telecast is to inform viewers about how the candidates intend to help America and if the help is practical or ridiculously ineffective. Explain it to us so we can be informed. Whichever candidate scored the biggest zinger is quite possibly the least consequential aspect of debate, at least when it comes to who can most capably govern the executive branch.
If fewer people watch because the discussions are too wonky and detailed... so what? Again, the press is tasked with holding politicians accountable. If they've presented an idea that policy experts agree might work, then say so, and then show us why. If they've presented an idea that policy experts agree is awful, then say so, and then show us why. Call out the hypocrisy and contradictions, and then explain.
A "referee" merely cites an error, levies a penalty and is never tasked with explaining his or her decision. The modern press, on the other hand, is unmatched in the history of human communication. It has the capability to access untold volumes of information and to instantly relay that information to tens of millions of people via multiple transmission formats. But due to increasingly obvious corporate and financial subversion of the press, this technology is misappropriated as a means of teasing, titillating and sensationalizing the news. A referee throws down a yellow flag and then takes his or her time to examine the evidence and render a verdict. If only the cable news people performed this efficiently and effectively in a debate.
The news media has become so thoroughly neutered by a 40-year conservative guilt trip regarding a so-called "liberal media bias" that, consequently, they've developed a pathologically self-conscious aversion to saying anything that might sound even slightly left-leaning. Therefore cable news reporters and hosts shy away from revealing the truth in lieu of non-controversial horse race coverage of politics.
Logic, however, dictates that reporting the truth always favors one group over another, be it a prosecutor over a defense attorney, the Orioles over the Yankees or liberals over conservatives. If the reality is that liberal policy X makes more sense and has been objectively proven to work, then there's no legitimate reason why that information should be withheld from the public.
So in an effort to improve its political coverage, the networks need to downsize the inclusion of "political analysts" while increasing the ranks of well-spoken and compelling policy wonks. Drop the silly puff questions. Drop the sporting event introductions. And tell us if these politicians are accurate in their statements and if their ideas are within the boundaries of efficacy, and then explain. If it's boring, so be it. Once all of the serious details are sussed out, have some fun with score-keeping, gaffes and sucker-punches as a kicker.
In other words, inform the democratic process or make way for journalists who are capable of doing so. Considering the syllabus of issues on the table, I can't think of a more appropriate time for the cable news media to step up and do its job.
Listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show on iTunes, with Bob Cesca and Chez Pazienza.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go

JEFF BARNETT SCHEDULES Ten Town Hall Meetings Scheduled Across District

HERE is the town meeting schedule for Jeff Barnett, candidate for Representative of the 10th District of Virginia. Too bad Rep frank wolf (r VA) is too cowardly to debate Jeff in every county of the district as Mr Barnett proposed. Hope you will take the time to go to one of these meetings and find out more about Jeff Barnett's positions on the issues. Click the header to go to his campaign website.
 
Barnett Campaign Will Hold Ten Town Hall Meetings
McLean, VA -- Jeff Barnett, Democratic Nominee for Congress in Virginia’s 10th District, announced that he will hold ten town hall meetings across the District.
“Frank Wolf has agreed to one debate and one forum, but that’s not nearly enough. That’s why I’m putting together ten town hall meetings. 10th District residents deserve the opportunity to question their candidates on the issues they are most concerned about and to hear opposing views” said Jeff Barnett. “It’s disappointing that Frank Wolf is ducking the tough issues by refusing to debate me in more than one place, but these town hall meetings will allow voters to hear from at least one of their candidates directly,” Barnett continued. “I look forward to an open exchange of ideas about our future.” 
The schedule for the town hall meetings is as follows:
Chantilly: Monday, August 9 from 7:00-8:30PM at Chantilly Regional Library
McLean: Wednesday, August 11 from 7:00-8:30 at McLean Community Center
Manassas Park: Monday, August 16 from 7:00-8:30 at the Manassas Park Community Center
Great Falls: Tuesday, August 17 from 7:00-8:30 at Great Falls Library
Ashburn: Tuesday, August 24 from 7:00-8:30 at Ashburn Library
Leesburg: Wednesday, August 25 from 7:00-8:30 at Thomas Balch Library
Front Royal: Thursday, August 26 from 7:00-8:30 at Samuels Library
Winchester: Monday, August 30 from 7:00-8:30 at the Public Safety Building on Coverstone Drive
Warrenton: Wednesday, September 1 from 7:00-8:30 at the Warrenton-Fauquier Visitors Center
Herndon: Thursday, September 2 from 7:00-8:30 at the Herndon Fortnightly Library
“There is a stark contrast between the two candidates in this race,” said Marc Abanto, Jeff Barnett’s Campaign Manager. “Unlike his opponent, Jeff Barnett embraces the challenge of debating policy proposals. He is more than willing to talk to voters across the political spectrum. These town hall meetings will demonstrate Jeff’s command of the issues and prove the strength of Jeff’s approach to addressing the problems of the 10th District and of our nation.”

JEFF BARNETT SCHEDULES Ten Town Hall Meetings Scheduled Across District 22JUL10

Since Rep frank wolf won't accept Jeff Barnett's request for 7 debates in the 10th district (basically he is unable to justify his pathetic performance as a member of Congress) Jeff Barnett has scheduled 10 town hall meeting across the district to explain his positions and why he is the best choice to represent us. Click the header to go his campaign website.
 
Barnett Campaign Will Hold Ten Town Hall Meetings
McLean, VA -- Jeff Barnett, Democratic Nominee for Congress in Virginia’s 10th District, announced that he will hold ten town hall meetings across the District.
“Frank Wolf has agreed to one debate and one forum, but that’s not nearly enough. That’s why I’m putting together ten town hall meetings. 10th District residents deserve the opportunity to question their candidates on the issues they are most concerned about and to hear opposing views” said Jeff Barnett. “It’s disappointing that Frank Wolf is ducking the tough issues by refusing to debate me in more than once place, but these town hall meetings will allow voters to hear from at least one of their candidates directly,” Barnett continued. “I look forward to an open exchange of ideas about our future.” 
The schedule for the town hall meetings is as follows:
Chantilly: Monday, August 9 from 7:00-8:30PM at Chantilly Regional Library
McLean: Wednesday, August 11 from 7:00-8:30 at McLean Community Center
Manassas Park: Monday, August 16 from 7:00-8:30 at the Manassas Park Government Center
Great Falls: Tuesday, August 17 from 7:00-8:30 at Great Falls Library
Ashburn: Tuesday, August 24 from 7:00-8:30 at Ashburn Library
Leesburg: Wednesday, August 25 from 7:00-8:30 at Thomas Balch Library
Front Royal: Thursday, August 26 from 7:00-8:30 at Samuels Library
Winchester: Monday, August 30 from 7:00-8:30 at the Public Safety Building on Coverstone Drive
Warrenton: Wednesday, September 1 from 7:00-8:30 at the Warrenton-Fauquier Visitors Center
Herndon: Thursday, September 2 from 7:00-8:30 at the Herndon Fortnightly Library
“There is a stark contrast between the two candidates in this race,” said Marc Abanto, Jeff Barnett’s Campaign Manager. “Unlike his opponent, Jeff Barnett embraces the challenge of debating policy proposals. He is more than willing to talk to voters across the political spectrum. These town hall meetings will demonstrate Jeff’s command of the issues and prove the strength of Jeff’s approach to addressing the problems of the 10th District and of our nation.”

Frank Wolf Refuses Jeff Barnett's Debate Challenge 21JUL10

FRANK WOLF IS A COWARD!!!! HIS CORPORATE OWNERS HAVEN'T GIVEN HIM PERMISSION TO DEBATE JEFF BARNETT BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN DEFEND HIS RECORD OF SUPPORTING THE WEALTHY, DENYING THE WORKING CLASS AND MIDDLE CLASS AND KOW-TOWING TO HIS POLITICAL MASTERS IN D.C. WHO TELL HIM WHAT LEGISLATION TO SUPPORT AND WHAT TO OPPOSE AND DO NOT ALLOW HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE ANY IDEA OF HIS OWN. HE HAS ALLOWED HIMSELF TO BECOME A LAPDOG, A SHADOW OF HIS FORMER POLITICAL SELF, MEANINGLESS EXCEPT AS A CONSISTENT VOTE AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF THE 10TH DISTRICT , OF VIRGINIA AND THE NATION. THIS IS THE POLITICAL REALITY HE HAS CREATED FOR HIMSELF, AND WITH HIS REFUSAL TO DEBATE JEFF BARNETT HE HAS PUBLICLY DECLARED HIMSELF NOT WORTHY TO CONTINUE REPRESENTING THE 10TH DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA! CLICK THE HEADER TO GO TO THE BARNETT CAMPAIGN WEBSITE.

Barnett Calls for Open Exchange of Ideas

Rep. Frank Wolf, the 10th District’s 30-year incumbent Congressman, has refused an invitation to participate in debates across the District, the Barnett campaign reported on Wednesday. Barnett wrote to Wolf last month, proposing one debate in each County of the 10th District.

“In June, I challenged my opponent to make politics more about people – the people he represents,” Barnett said. “I suggested we debate in every county of our District because I think that voters – wherever they live – deserve to see their candidates debate the issues that matter to their communities. Having those discussions is one of the obligations – and privileges – of public service. It’s disappointing that Frank Wolf doesn’t agree.”

“Now is the time for our leaders to be discussing their differences openly,” Barnett continued. “Our economy is recovering from a staggering recession. Traffic is gridlocked. We are fighting two wars. These are times of great trial for our nation and our district, but they are also days of remarkable promise. The choice voters make this November will shape our future in profound ways. With so much at stake, it’s a shame that Frank Wolf would shy away from open debates about solving the problems we face. The 10th District deserves a Congressman who will stand up to the challenge of new ideas. The 10th District needs new leadership in Washington.”

“Frank Wolf’s office told us that one debate and one candidate forum would probably be sufficient, but the 10th District is demanding more accountability,” said Marc Abanto, Barnett's campaign manager. “Given Representative Wolf's opposition to much-needed Wall St. Reform and his longstanding support of big oil, it's no surprise that Frank Wolf is trying to limit the number of times he must publicly defend his record. Jeff Barnett will spend the month of August doing what Frank Wolf won't: having an open and vigorous discussion with voters.”

Elections shouldn’t be one-sided conversations. Frank Wolf might not be willing to talk to voters directly, but I am,” Barnett promised. “That’s why I am putting together a series of town hall meetings all across the District. I am committed to an honest discussion with Virginians of all political persuasions about our future. “
The Barnett campaign has scheduled eight town hall meetings. The full Town Hall schedule will be available on Thursday, July 22nd.

REP FRANK WOLF STILL HASN'T ANSWERED JEFF BARNETT'S CHALLENGE TO DEBATE

IT has been 10 days since Jeff Barnett challenged Rep Frank Wolf to 7 debates for the VA 10th District office. It is understandable, considering Rep Wolf is probably getting permission from his gop and corporate masters. Click the header to go the Barnett campaign website. Maybe the following is why Wolf hasn't responded

Republicans divided on the importance of an agenda for midterm elections 

By Karen Tumulty and Paul Kane

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 17, 2010; A01


Sometime after Labor Day, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner plans to unveil a blueprint of what Republicans will do if they take back control of the chamber. He promises it will be a full plate of policy proposals that will give voters a clear sense of how they would govern.
But will Republicans actually want to run on those ideas -- or any ideas? Behind the scenes, many are being urged to ignore the leaders and do just the opposite: avoid issues at all costs. Some of the party's most influential political consultants are quietly counseling their clients to stay on the offensive for the November midterm elections and steer clear of taking stands on substance that might give Democratic opponents material for a counterattack.
"The smart political approach would be to make the election about the Democrats," said Neil Newhouse of the powerhouse Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, which is advising more than 50 House and Senate candidates. "In terms of our individual campaigns, I don't think it does a great deal of good" to engage in a debate over the Republicans' own agenda.
Others are skeptical that any Republican policy proposals will have much of an impact. "They really still have to have a sharp contrast with the Democrats," said John McLaughlin, another leading Republican pollster whose firm counts both the House and Senate campaign committees among its clients. "They really need to drive that home before people will be willing to listen to what Republicans stand for."
It's not that Boehner (Ohio) is arguing for a cease-fire. The debate among Republicans comes down to this: The speaker-in-waiting, for all his love of political combat, thinks that voters will not trust GOP candidates if their attacks don't also provide at least some substance. The consultants argue that public anger, if properly stoked, alone can carry the party over the finish line. In their view, getting bogged down in the issues is a distraction and even a potential liability.
One who begs to differ is the architect of the last GOP takeover of the House. "Consultants, in my opinion, are stupid," former speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said in an interview. "The least idea-oriented, most mindless campaign of simplistic slogans is a mindless idea."
The working title for Boehner's promised agenda is "Commitment to America." It is an unmistakable echo of the fabled 10-point "Contract with America" that Gingrich and his battalion of long-shot candidates signed on the steps on the Capitol in 1994, six weeks before they stunned the political world and won the House.
Yet the strategist who Republicans are studying most closely this year isn't Gingrich: It's Rahm Emanuel, the former Democratic congressman from Chicago and current White House chief of staff. Emanuel led the 2006 campaign that put the House back in Democratic hands 12 years after Gingrich's Republican Revolution. One clue to the balance Boehner is trying to strike between heat and light: House Republican leaders are passing around an old Time magazine story about Emanuel's 2006 election strategy. His formula was for candidates to spend 80 percent of their time on the attack and 20 percent on the issues.
Republicans in the Senate, with dimmer prospects of gaining control, are plotting a much simpler course. Their platform, to the degree they have one, is to offer themselves as an even bigger roadblock to the Democrats than they are now.
A prelude of this message came Thursday in a speech by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to the Young Republican Leadership Conference. McConnell blasted President Obama and the Democrats for overspending and overreaching but didn't spell out how the GOP would do things differently.
"We're not going to tell you that if you vote Republican you're going to wake up in your dream home with a brand-new Corvette outside, ready to take you to the best job in the world," McConnell said. "You know why? Because government can't deliver that promise."
Though poll numbers suggest a political climate very much like that of 1994, Republicans recognize they face a different kind of challenge.
Back then, it had been four decades since the GOP had run the House, which meant that few Americans knew what Republican rule would look like. Now, as party leaders themselves have acknowledged, they need to convince voters they have learned from the mistakes that cost them the majority only four years ago.
It is no accident that Boehner has put two up-and-coming second-term congressmen, Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Peter Roskam (lll.), in charge of drafting the new agenda for governing. Neither has the taint of having been in Washington for the previous 12-year reign of House Republicans.
Although their plan is not likely to be as ambitious as the Contract with America, Republicans say it will be more detailed than anything the Democrats offered in 2006.
"There will be legislation. There will be bills. You'll see what's in them," said McCarthy. He is gathering public suggestions on a Web site the party calls "America Speaking Out," though traditional polling is likely to be the real GPS for drafting any legislation.
It will probably be relatively cautious, and limited to a few of the top concerns of both conservatives and independent voters.
"What's our plan to create jobs and grow the economy?" said GOP pollster David Winston, who is advising the House Republican leadership on the effort. "That's really what we have to address. We need command focus."
Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said it will also include sections on national security and proposals for making internal reforms of the House, to create more transparency as to how the legislative process works.
All of this will sound like well-worn themes to many voters. But in the end, Cantor said, the most important reason for coming up with an agenda is to ensure that Republicans have "something that can become a governing document."
It will be announced with nothing like the fanfare of Gingrich's Capitol steps event, which drew GOP House candidates from across the country. Indeed, the last thing that many of their 2010 contenders would want is a photo op inside the Beltway.
House Republicans also plan to leave it up to their candidates to decide which proposals to embrace, Roskam said.
A clear agenda might not enhance the Republicans' prospects for winning on Nov. 2. But if things go their way, it could come in pretty handy starting Nov. 3. Assuming, of course, that the candidates run on it -- and not from it.

Barnett Challenges Wolf to Debates

Wed, 07/07/2010 - 11:57am | by Patrick

For Immediate Release

7 July 2010

Barnett Challenges Wolf to Debates 30JUN10

WILL FRANK WOLF ACCEPT? Or is he afraid of exposing himself as one of the lap dogs of corporate America and the republican leadership, having no thoughts or ideas of his own, just doing what he is paid to (through campaign donations and the like) and told to do? Click the header to go to the Barnett campaign website.

 

Barnett Challenges Wolf to Debates

Last week, Jeff formally challenged Frank Wolf to a series of debates, proposing at least one in each County of the 10th District. As Jeff says, "voters should not have to rely on 30-second commercials, glossy mailers, and packaged sound bites to learn about our campaigns." That's why we've challenged Frank Wolf to a series of open and rigorous debates. We think voters deserve a chance to interact directly with the candidates and pose questions that have not been pre-screened. Will Frank Wolf agree? 

One of the reasons I enjoy working for Jeff is that he never shies away from speaking candidly to anyone about his ideas - whether or not they agree with him. The voters of the 10th District deserve that same openness from their incumbent Congressman. We look forward to hearing back from Mr. Wolf's response to our challenge. Click here to read the text of the press release, or click here to read the full text of the letter we mailed to Frank Wolf. 

Open Letter to Frank Wolf

June 30, 2010

 

 

Dear Congressman Wolf,
Congratulations on receiving your party’s nomination for Congress. Katherine and I wish you and Carolyn the very best in the months ahead.
 You and I have fundamental disagreements on how to prioritize and resolve the problems facing the 10th District and our Nation. We owe the voters an open and complete discussion of our differences. Virginians should not have to rely on 30-second commercials, glossy campaign mailers, and packaged sound bites to learn about our campaigns. Voters deserve more. Voters deserve to hear our ideas directly.
I propose a series of debates: at least one in each county of the 10th District. Our debates should have a flexible structure that allows us to substantively discuss each other’s ideas. A neutral party should moderate each debate, and each debate should give voters the privilege of asking questions that are not pre-screened. If you prefer, we can involve a non-partisan mediator in the planning process to ensure that debate arrangements are equitable for both campaigns and informative for voters.
 I hope to hear from you by July 15th so we can start arranging our debates. With seven counties and seventeen weeks until Election Day, we shouldn’t have any trouble finding times that fit our busy schedules.
 We share a common commitment to remaining accessible to the people we serve. In that spirit of accountability, I hope you will join me in a series of robust and open debates.

Sincerely,
Jeff Barnett
Democratic Nominee for Congress
10th District of Virginia