The Virginia Republican Party faces enough problems heading into November’s Senate race, this isn’t going to help things:
Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William) said today he won’t run as an Independent candidate for the U.S. Senate, but probably will not be endorsing GOP Senate nominee James S. Gilmore III, either
In an interview, Marshall said he remains upset about mailers Gilmore sent out during the final days of their race for the nomination. Gilmore, a former governor, defeated Marshall by less than 1 percent at the state GOP convention on Saturday.
A few days before the convention, Gilmore sent out a mailing that questioned Marshall’s conservative credentials. The Gilmore campaign said it was responding to three negative mail pieces that Marshall had sent out.
“Why would Jim want my endorsement?” Marshall asked. “He says I am dishonest, so why would an honorable man like Jim Gilmore want an endorsement from someone he says is dishonest?”
Give me a break.
There’s an old saying attributed to Harry Truman that I think applies quite aptly here — If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Marshall and Gilmore were in the middle of a hotly contested nomination fight, as evidence by what happened in Richmond on Saturday. It’s not surprising that Gilmore would go after Marshall on his opponents claim that he was the more conservative candidate, just like Marshall went after Gilmore.
Complaining about a few flyers ? I mean, seriously dude, grow a pair.
Marshall, though, will hear nothing of party unity and appears to be pretending that the campaign is still going on:
Marshall, who based his campaign on his staunch opposition to abortion and tax increases, added he will throw his support behind Gilmore if the former governor comes out in favor of banning all abortions. Gilmore supports abortion rights until the 8th week of pregnancy, a stance that prompted Marshall to challenge him for the nomination.
“I would campaign harder for him than I would myself, if he comes out for life,” said Marshall, adding he put 215,000 miles on his car during his Senate campaign this spring.
As I noted last week, I fail to understand why conservative who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned — the effect of which would be to return the issue to the states, where it belongs — would want to make abortion an issue in a race for the national legislature. Especially when taking the stance that Marshall advocates would, I’m willing to bet, cost Gilmore votes among moderate and fiscally conservative Republican-leaning voters in Northern Virginia and other parts of the state, something he cannot afford to allow happen.
I don’t know how many of Bobby Sour Grapes’ supporters will go along with him on this, but I’ll hand kudos to Marshall supporter Ken Cuccinelli who summed up the depths of his former candidates self-centeredness quite nicely:
“Nobody should go to a (convention) and leave not ready to support the nominee,” Cuccinelli said. “It is totally unreasonable to not support the other candidate when they beat your guy.”
Yea, that about sums it up.
Meanwhile, Mark Warner is laughing while the donation checks keep pouring in.
In case you’re wondering, nonsense like this isn’t how you win elections.
H/T: Scott of Scott’s Morning Brew via Twitter
Update: James Young, who supported Marshall in the nomination fight, has this to say:
C’mon, Bob! I’m pro-life, too, but this guy is running for the United States Senate, not the Virginia Senate. His primary ability to advance the pro-life cause is to confirm judges and Justices of the United States Supreme Court who will reverse Roe v. Wade for the constitutional monstrosity that it is, and return the issue of when or if to allow abortion back to the States, where it belongs.
The only Federal role would be on federal funding of abortions, and I presume that Jim Gilmore supports the Hyde Amendment.
What Bob wants, Bob is not entitled to get. It would be a meaningless gesture, in the sense that the United States Senate has no legislative role on this issue. And if Jim Gilmore were to agree to Bob’s conditions, the only thing he would achieve would be to gain a reputation as a flip-flopper. It would be unpersuasive to his enemies, and offensive to his friends.
James and I don’t always agree, but on this one, he’s right on the money.
And I’d add this — I’m not sure what Marshall thinks he’s accomplishing if he really does intend to play this game all the way to November. He’s not going to win any friends in the RPV, that’s for sure.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:30 am
First off, no one, including the RPV itself, is 100% sure that Gilmore legitimately won the nomination. The voting process at that convention was looser than the local hookers.
Secondly, Bob correctly believes that Life is too precious to be left to the states. If Virginia declared it legal for me to walk up to someone and shoot them square in the face, would the federal government step in? You bet, and rightfully so. Killing, neither babies nor AARP members, is not OK.
As far as the mailer goes, you’re greatly exaggerating Marshall’s response. Ken Cuccinelli focused on that more so than did Bob, who gave it a moments noticed before proceeding to rousing his supporters tenfold that of his opponents. I got not one piece of literature from Gilmore’s campaign until that specific one arrived two days before the convention, greatly spinning Marshall’s views with no time to respond. And you talk about party unity? Gilmore shrugged off his opponent and declared victory long before the convention as if he were Reagan ‘84.
“Especially when taking the stance that Marshall advocates would, I’m willing to bet, cost Gilmore votes among moderate and fiscally conservative Republican-leaning voters in Northern Virginia and other parts of the state, something he cannot afford to allow happen.”
This goes to reiterate well what Bob said during his nomination speech - that we cannot compromise one value for the sake of victory.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
Sometimes after a long and hard campain it is hard to switch sides on a dime. I wouldn’t bash Marshall too hard, after all, he just lost in a race that was desided by a handfull of people.
I do agree will Marshall on one thing. If Gilmore doesn’t try to push small goverment and right to life issues he will be embarased this fall. Not only will the liberals and moderates vote for Warner but the conservitives like myself will stay home. This could go for McCain also.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
I highly doubt Gilmore will make up those 15-20 percentage points between him and Warner by November. The VA GOP needed a new face for this election, not Gilmore - just the same old politician from the VA GOP establishment. If Gilmore is polling this poorly with his widespread name recognition, it spells disaster in November. Marshall would have given the GOP a chance by getting the party back to strong principles. Losing by such a close margin, it’s difficult to move forward. The GOP will suffer this November for pushing these moderate, do-nothing, all-talk candidates on the people this November. I’m sure many principled conservatives will just stay home.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Cara,
What evidence do you have Marhsall would do any better against Warner ?
If anything, I think he would have done worse because his positions would have pushed away the moderate Republican voters in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads that the GOP needs to get to win this year.
At least Gilmore has a shot at getting them.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Chris,
So you would support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution I assume ?
You are entitled to that view, but please realize that it will never happen and that, outside of the Deep South, a Republican politician who runs on such a platform will have a hard time winning.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Doug,
I for one am sick of Jim Gilmore and his scorched earth campaigns. Im sure you remember what he did to Steve Agee the NIGHT BEFORE the convention, virtually brabding him a socialist!
It’s time the Marshall/Paul types realize, the GOP only wants your money and your time, not your candidates or positions.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:17 am
Cato,
One man’s scorched earth is another man’s winning campaign.
I don’t quite get why you are tying the Bob Marshall and Ron Paul types together. I consider myself a libertarian Republican and couldn’t support Marshall simply because of the Marshall-Newman Amendment.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 am
I don’t totally agree with Marshall’s positions, but I’m trying to make the point that these types of candidates (like Gilmore and McCain) push away the base of the GOP. Maybe it’s a “damned if you, damned if don’t” situation. It splits them either way - either they get the base or they get the moderates, assuming the base won’t hold their noses and vote for them anyway. Moderates will choose Warner over Gilmore anyway. He left office with 70% approval rating, didn’t he? So, I don’t have any evidence. Maybe he wouldn’t have done any better than Gilmore. Guess we won’t know now. I still don’t see how Gilmore will improve his current numbers unless some scandal breaks for Warner. If nothing else, Marshall would have been a new name for voters and a more distinct choice. There are little differences between the parties or candidates anymore. In the end, we will end up with bigger government and more spending.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Holding on to the base is important, but the Virginia GOP isn’t going to win a statewide election by appealing to the base alone.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Why is Marshall the sore loser? Why can’t Gilmore come out and say that he was wrong in the heat of passion and that the statements were misconstrued to insinuate that Marshall was dishonest.
What happened to honor? I don’t blame Marshall at all. Let Gilmore come to Marshall and apologize. I then think you’ll see Marshall come together. An injury has been done and we don’t overlook it just because it’s politics, right?
June 4th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Doug,
There’s no need for any further amendment to the constitution; we already have it in need in the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Now all that’s left is for Congress to simply eliminate the ambiguity of the term ‘life.’
And as far as Marshall’s chances, we KNOW Gilmore has no shot, so why does the mentality remain that we should just push a losing candidate. At the very least, try someone else, and when you’re given a strong conservative such as Marshall, hell yea, go for it.
You want evidence Bob Marshall could have done better? His marriage amendment passed with 57%. Who’s to say that if he were to run against Warner he couldn’t pick up that same 57% (AND energize the pro-life votes) and win?
June 4th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Chris,
A Supreme Court decision accomplishing what you suggest would be as Constitutionally illegitimate as Roe v. Wade was. The Federal Government has no authority in the area absent a Constitutional Amendment granting it.
If your suggestion is to turn Marshall into some sort of conservative sacrificial lamb, I don’t quite understand how that helps win elections, which is, after all, why political parties exist.
First of all, turnout in 2008 will be much higher than it was when the Amendment was passed. Second, there’s no evidence that someone who voted for the Amendment is per se a Marshall supporter. Third, voters care about more than just gay marriage and abortion. Fourth, because neither gay marriage nor abortion are issues that Senators should be dealing with in the first place. And, fifth, because Mark Warner would clean Marshall’s clock in a debate.
Gilmore has the odds stacked against him, no doubt, but he’s got a better shot than Bobby Sour Grapes ever would.
And on the off chance Marshall had won on Saturday, I will bet that Gilmore would have endorsed him right away rather than playing the stupid game the Marshall is playing.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Give it a rest guys. A good case can be made that Gilmore prevailed because he has an open bar in the hospitality suites, while everyone else had only wine and/or beer. One or two votes from the right places could have swung this thing the other way. It’s as good an explanation as any, given the stupid reasons why some people choose the people for whom they vote (sad to say, including some GOP voters).
And Chris (comment 1) I had questions at one point, too. However, unless you question the integrity of those conducting the process — and I don’t — the only questions that I had were ones relating to counting ballots cast for a candidate not qualified. Those have been resolved, as you can see on my site.
Gilmore’s the nominee. Narrowly, but doubtless, the nominee. He owes — and probably gives — Bob the respect that someone who has just narrowly defeated a former Governor deserves. It would be far better for both to say nothing about the contest publicly, and — as one person suggested to me — if Gilmore were to call Bob personally and reach an accommodation short of surrendering his long-held positions.