ADMINS
Kenton Ngo
Johnny Camacho
Aimee Fausser
EDITORS
Bryan Scrafford
Adam Sharp
DanielK

BlogRoll
STATEWIDE
Bearing Drift
Blue Commonwealth
BlogNetNews
CobaltVA
Not Larry Sabato
Raising Moran
VAPoliticalBlogs

NORTHERN
7 West
Albo Must Go
Anonymous Is A Woman
Anti-BVBL
Blacknell
Blueweeds
Getting Around
Leslie Byrne
Left of the Hill
Ox Road South
Raw Fisher
Renaissance Ruminations
The Green Miles
Too Conservative
X Curmudgeon

HAMPTON ROADS
Shad Plank
VBDems
Vivian Paige

CHARLOTTESVILLE
Democratic Central
Rick Sincere
Rule .303
Shaun Kenney
Waldo Jaquith

RICHMOND
SlantBlog
Save Richmond
Tertium Quids

SOUTHSIDE
Dem Bones
What IS Right For Virginia
220 South

VALLEY
Adam Sharp
RockDem
The Friendly City
The Valley Progress Report

SOUTHWEST
Rick Howell Speaks
Star City Harbinger

Latest Moran Snafu again raises doubts about campaign's direction

by: aznew

Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 09:09:57 PM EDT


Crossposted from The Virginia Democrat and Daily Kos

With his latest Snafu, Brian Moran has shown, again, that based on the campaign he has run so far, he is arguably not ready to be the Democratic nominee for Governor.

(Story is on the jump)

aznew :: Latest Moran Snafu again raises doubts about campaign's direction
As widely reported, lobbying firm BGR, founded by, among others, Republican operative Ed Rogers, hosted a fundraiser for Terry McAuliffe on March 24.  The fundraiser came about, according to Politico, because Rogers and McAuliffe had become good friends through sharing green rooms over the years while waiting to debate one another on television.

Still, I think the fundraiser was a fair subject for criticism. For one thing, BGR was always a firm with only Republican clientele, but began only recently taking on Democratic clients. When someone who is an ideological opponent helps a candidate raise money, it is certainly fair to ask what they hope to get out of it.

Here, in my view, it became a question of magnitude and judgment. My problem was not that Rogers and McAuliffe were friends, or that one friend might help out another. If all had Rogers had done was donate to McAuliffe's campaign because they were friends, there would be little, if any, cause to complain.

But the organization of a fundraiser using the business name turned it into a business transaction, not a personal gesture of friendship. It thus became fair to ask what Rogers and BGR hoped to get out of the fundraiser. Perhaps enhanced credibility among democrats?

If so, it also became fair to address the propriety of a Democrat - any Democrat - helping this particular Republican to gain credibility. There was plenty of YouTube footage of Rogers, shilling for John McCain last fall on the talking head circuit, criticizing Barack Obama - some of it offensive, especially his despicable use of the President's middle, Hussein, as a epithet designed to create the impression that he could not be trusted. Disgusting.

The assault on McAuliffe began on March 12 when "University of Virginia law student, Marine and citizen journalist" Mike Stark posted an article at Huffington Post entitled, "McAuliffe Still Sleeping with Dogs." Stark crossposted to DK, using the title, "McAuliffe has lost it," and exhorted readers to "make sure" the diary hit the Rec List (it wound up with 399 Recs).

Stark's article was factual, even if one didn't agree with the conclusions it drew. As with much of Stark's anti-McAuliffe work over the past couple of months, however, it was aimed more at a guilt-by-association than anything else (consider, for example, the title,  "Sleeping with Dogs"), arguing that we should judge this candidate by the company he keeps. It is a theme Stark had touched on previously with respect to McAuliffe (See "Don't do this Virginia," on Blue Commonwealth).

Beneath the ersatz sensationalism of these articles, what they are calling into question is McAuliffe's judgment about whom he chooses to associate professionally and personally (although less convincing was Stark's efforts to tie McAuliffe to some racist dude who jumped into a snapshot with T-Mac by referring to the guy as McAuliffe's "pal." This sort of overreaching does make one question the sincerity of Stark's previous allegations).

The fundraiser took place on March 24, and the next day, the Moran campaign issued the following press release::

Moran Campaign Finds McAuliffe Fundraiser with Anti-Obama Operatives "Offensive"

ALEXANDRIA - Virginians for Brian Moran made the following statement about last night's fundraiser for CEO Terry McAuliffe, hosted by Republican operative Ed Rogers at the lobbying firm he shares with Haley Barbour, Vice-Chair of the Republican Governors Association. Rogers has worked to defeat scores of Democrats nationwide, including President Barack Obama last year.

The Politico reported on the fundraiser yesterday afternoon:

Moran Campaign Manager Andrew Roos said:

"It's offensive to see Terry McAuliffe raising money with the likes of Republican operative and lobbyist Ed Rogers. Rogers joined Rush Limbaugh and others in raising racially and religiously charged attacks against then Senator Obama. It's sad that in the same week Terry McAuliffe aired a radio ad claiming credit for helping to elect Barack Obama, he's holding a fundraiser with someone who did everything he could to defeat him. We need people who stand up to partner with President Obama in the White House not people who condone these kinds of Rove-style attacks."

[snip]

Several days later, the Moran campaign issued another press release, this time featuring several prominent Democrats from around the Commonwealth, commenting on McAuliffe raising money with "anti-Obama lobbyist Ed Rogers." Here is that release:

Statements on Anti-Obama Fundraiser

~ Leaders express concern about host Ed Rogers, Republican Lobbyist and Operative Responsible for Some of the Most Negative and Divisive Attacks on Obama ~

ALEXANDRIA - In response to last week's Washington Post article regarding anti-Obama Republican Lobbyist Ed Rogers, who hosted a fundraiser to support Terry McAuliffe's campaign for governor, several prominent Virginia supporters of President Obama released the following statements.

"There has always been a question about whether Terry McAuliffe would really stand behind President Barack Obama if he were elected Governor of Virginia. It's one thing to say you will, but by having a fundraiser with Ed Rogers he's proven that he won't," said former Virginia Beach City Councilwoman Louisa Strayhorn. Strayhorn was elected to be a national delegate to the historic 2008 Democratic National Convention pledged to Barack Obama.

She continued, "Ed Rogers and Rush Limbaugh led and defended the nastiest and most divisive attacks against Barack Obama, and if Terry McAuliffe stands with him, then Terry McAuliffe is standing against Barack Obama just as he did during the presidential primary."

[snip]

"It is incredibly disappointing that Terry McAuliffe would raise money from people who led incredibly divisive attacks against President Obama during last year's election," Chesapeake City Councilman Bryan Collins said. "I know this will cause a great deal of skepticism about McAuliffe's candidacy among the activists who worked so hard to elect the President."

"Terry McAuliffe has been telling Virginia Democrats how much success he will bring with his fundraising prowess," Norfolk Commissioner of Revenue Sharon McDonald said. "The Washington Post's coverage of his fundraiser at the firm founded by Haley Barbour certainly begs the question: Why does he need to raise money from Ed Rogers, a Republican operative and Lee Atwater protégé, in the first place? Virginia Democrats find this offensive, and not the kind leadership we want in our next Governor."

This criticism is clearly aimed at McAuliffe's decision to allow Roger and his firm to raise money for his campaign. Given the case Moran made against McAuliffe, it is fair to conclude that any Democrat who associated with Rogers in this way ought to be subject to the same exact critique. If McAuliffe benefiting form a Rogers/BGR fundraiser is "offensive," then isn't any Democrat's similar kind association with Rogers and BGR similarly "offensive?"

Say, for example, and, hey, I know this would never happen, but what if Rogers and BGR held a fundraiser for, oh, I don't know, Mark Warner, well, we'd all have to reconsider our support ... what...uh-oh ... your kidding, right?

Unfortunately for Brian Moran, it's no joke.

Anta Kumar of the Washington Post reported yesterday:

Last week, Democratic gubernatorial Brian Moran blasted his rival Terry McAuliffe for attending a Washington fundraiser hosted by BGR Group, a lobbying firm founded in part by Republican Ed Rogers.

But it turns out BGR and Rogers hosted a fundraiser for another Virginia Democrat.

A fundraiser honoring U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner of Virginia was held in October 2008 when the former governor was running for Senate. The invitation included Rogers, along with nine other lobbyists with BGR, including former Bush aide Eric Burgeson, Lanny Griffith, who worked in the George H.W. Bush White House and Bob Wood, chief of staff to former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

What's more, the usually mild Kumar seems to mock Moran, asking "So what does Moran say now?"

Here is Roos' response to Kumar, as reported by the Post:

This isn't just about who you hold a fundraiser with. The question we've raised is about his close, continuing and broader relationship with Ed Rogers and we find it questionable."

Not exactly.

At no time did Mr. Roos raise the issue of McAuliffe's "close, continuing and broader relationship with Ed Rogers?" In his first news release, he discussed only the fundraiser. The second release, consisting of third party quotes, references only the fundraiser. Neither release comes anywhere near limiting the criticism to "close, continuing and broader relationship."

Secondly, Mr. Roos, did not say he found the relationship "questionable." He said it was "offensive" and "sad."

In light of the revelation that Rogers and BGR threw a similar affair for Warner as it did for McAuliffe, I understand the desire to walk the criticism back. But that is what happens when you let a blogger, in this case, Mike Stark, acting out of disdain for McAuliffe, not support of Moran, define your campaign message.

This isn't the first time Moran's efforts to criticize McAuliffe's fundraising led to a serving of crow for him. Early in January, even before McAuliffe officially entered the race, Moran called on Creigh and McAuliffe not to accept out of state donations. According to the RTD:

The election should not be about "who can raise more money from national donors," Moran said. "Virginia Democrats should choose our nominee."

Amusingly, it took James Martin about three seconds to check VPAP and post a pair of extensive comments to NLS showing that Brian Moran, himself, had raised significant sums from outside of Virginia.

It has been painfully obvious for some time now that McAuliffe's entrance in the race has thrown Moran and his campaign for a loop and generated several unforced errors in the campaign. But what, if anything, does it say about the kind of general election candidate than Moran might be, or the kind of Governor he might make.

Moran has never had a tough election. He hails from a strongly Democratic area where he benefited from strong name recognition from day one thanks to his brother. This is the first time Virginia has seen him in a hard-fought campaign, and it has not been pretty, featuring in addition to the gaffes discussed above:

-- An ill-advised attack launched against McAuliffe at the JJ dinner that left even many of Moran's supporters uncomfortable;

-- A nasty campaign in the blogosphere against two bloggers in particular who endorsed McAuliffe, that has included some ethically dubious tactics, including the leaking of private e-mails and the leveling of unfounded allegations of impropriety by campaign volunteers;

-- The exposure, by a Moran consultant, of the identity of another anonymous blogger who was the administrator of a web site the Moran campaign considered hostile, forcing the administrator to shut down the site so as not to lose his employment;

-- Moran's last-second resignation of his House of Delegates seat that nearly resulted in a Republican victory in the special election for the seat in the lopsided Democratic district;

In this past Presidential election, as the economy unraveled in the waning weeks of the Bush Administration, Americans got to see how the respective candidates would handle a crisis. John McCain was out of control, one day declaring the economy fundamentally strong, the next suspending his candidacy to run back to Washington to broker a deal, only to end up as a fly in the ointment that nearly prevented a deal. Barack Obama, meanwhile, took a measured approach, remained calm and exuded confidence. In November, Americans made their choice. We made the right one.

Virginia Democrats are now getting a chance to see how their three candidates are handling themselves in a difficult campaign.

To be fair to Moran, every campaign has its ups and downs.  But this record of gaffes, ethical missteps and misjudgments, while different people might draw different conclusions from it, ought to fairly be considered in deciding for whom to vote on June 9.

(NOTE: I am a supporter of Creigh Deeds, who is also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor.)  

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is pretty dishonest on your part
"But that is what happens when you let a blogger, in this case, Mike Stark, acting out of disdain for McAuliffe, not support of Moran, define your campaign message."

I'll let most of your contortions go because they are pretty obvious but Mike Stark, as with all unpaid bloggers, act on their own and are not controlled by campaigns.  Which is kind of the whole point of political blogging. For you to characterize this statement above as the Moran campaign "letting" a blogger define their campaign is just simply dishonest on your part.  And I don't mean intellectually dishonest because you know better.  

As several point out over at your Daily Kos version, you have manufactured an attack on Moran while repeating the attack on McAuliffe in a lame attempt to gain support for Creigh Deeds.

You also conveniently left out that McAuliffe has a known relationship with both Ed Rogers and Haley Barbor in their partnership in a DC restaurant, the Caucus Room.  


I'm not going to engage in debate with you, Todd
starting off by calling me "dishonest" is not a basis to have a productive discussion. Nor is characterizing my work as "lame."

One correction, however: I do not state that the Moran campaign "controls" Mike Stark. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. But I have no idea, and I did not say they did.


[ Parent ]
I wasn't trying to engage in a discussion
I was just trying to point out some of the dishonest parts of your post.  And your correction is more of the same.  I didn't say you stated the Moran campaign "controls" Mike Stark.  I re-posted your own words where you imply that Mike Stark is being directed by the campaign, which he is not.  And then you implied it again in your comment above.  He's a loose cannon just like you and me and you know better than to imply otherwise.

The thing that you and a number of others just wont accept but is now showing up in the polls, is there is a rather widespread dislike of McAuliffe among Virginia Democrats and for good reason.  There will be many different people pointing out the many different problems with McAuliffe and only a few of them will be part of the Moran campaign.

Your post is lame because you are trying to hit both McAuliffe and Moran by pretending you are defending McAuliffe, while you are actually repeating a legitimate and effective objection against him and then pretending to be appalled at the Moran campaign for pointing out what he did.  

All the while trying to help Creigh Deeds.  Are you sure Creigh wants your help?  Cuz this is some pretty dishonest stuff you're pulling and it's also rather transparent.



[ Parent ]
Project much?
I implied nothing. I said, and I quote:

Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. But I have no idea, and I did not say they did.

Now how in the name of all that is holy does that imply that the Moran campaign controls Mike Stark? What part of "I HAVE NO IDEA [whether they control Mike Stark] is too complex for you?

As for dislike of McAuliffe showing up in the polls, of course I notice it. Everyone notices it. I'm all for it -- I do not support McAuliffe.

As for my post defending McAuliffe, it does nothing of the kind. Perhaps, however, these statements about McAuliffe and Rogers threw you off the scent there, Sherlock:

If all had Rogers had done was donate to McAuliffe's campaign because they were friends, there would be little, if any, cause to complain.

But the organization of a fundraiser using the business name turned it into a business transaction, not a personal gesture of friendship. It thus became fair to ask what Rogers and BGR hoped to get out of the fundraiser.

or this one:

Given the case Moran made against McAuliffe, it is fair to conclude that any Democrat who associated with Rogers in this way ought to be subject to the same exact critique.

Or this characterization of Rogers' actions was a little ambiguous:

Disgusting.

Finally, it was clear to a seven year old child that my point was not to defend McAuliffe, but raise questions about Moran's judgment in the conduct of his campaign. I know this because I ran it by a seven-year-old child, and he got it, even though, apparently, it escaped your notice.

The key there was the close:

Virginia Democrats are now getting a chance to see how their three candidates are handling themselves in a difficult campaign.

To be fair to Moran, every campaign has its ups and downs.  But this record of gaffes, ethical missteps and misjudgments, while different people might draw different conclusions from it, ought to fairly be considered in deciding for whom to vote on June 9.

What bothers me is your assertion that I was dishonest. I was not dishonest and you are wrong to call me that. I was truthful in everything I wrote. I understand that there is plenty to disagree with, and any can feel free to do so. But I won't accept being called dishonest by a second-rate intellect incapable of formulating a coherent argument in opposition, who instead relies on playground-level name calling.


[ Parent ]
As usual, you are cherry picking
It wasn't the "But I have no idea" part, it was the "Maybe they do" part that implies that the Moran campaign might control Mike Stark.  

When you made the argument that because Ed Roger's company also held a fund raiser for Mark Warner, it somehow absolves McAuliffe and makes Moran's reaction a "SNAFU" you did in fact defend McAuliffe.

And spewing paragraph after paragraph in a comment doesn't  exhibit a first-class intellect. It just makes you seem a little crazy.


[ Parent ]
You owe me an apology
Above, you state that I was dishonest because I falsly and knowingly stated that the Moran campaign controlled Mike Stark. That was contained in this statement of yours:

Mike Stark, as with all unpaid bloggers, act on their own and are not controlled by campaigns.  Which is kind of the whole point of political blogging. For you to characterize this statement above as the Moran campaign "letting" a blogger define their campaign is just simply dishonest on your part.  And I don't mean intellectually dishonest because you know better.

Challenged on that, you denied you made this statement, where you saud:

I didn't say you stated the Moran campaign "controls" Mike Stark.  I re-posted your own words where you imply that Mike Stark is being directed by the campaign, which he is not.

Challenged on that, you denied you made this assertion, and now characterize my remarks as follows (emphasis added):

it was the "Maybe they do" part that implies that the Moran campaign might control Mike Stark.  

Excellent, Todd. There is hope for you to understand plain English yet. One correction, though: I don't imply they might control Mike. I expressly state it might be possible. I expressly state I don't know.

I was not being dishonest. I'm sorry you don;t agree with whom I support in this race. And I'm sorry that you have such a hard time accepting criticism of your candidate. But you owe me an apology, because I was not dishonest. I deny that and I resent it, even coming from someone in the blogosphere with as little credibility as you.  And if you can't see why that is owed, screw you.


[ Parent ]
You are just over the bend
I'll just refer everyone to the original comment at the top, it's pretty clear what I said and it's nothing close to what you are claiming.

[ Parent ]
From another dKos thread

there are two large differences between Webb's association with Rogers and McAuliffe's, Ken (and there are likely others, but I'm not a VA resident so can only speak to these two obvious ones):

  1. Rogers hadn't slimed our party's presidential candidate in racist terms back then (and recall, Webb's victory was propelled in no small part by Allen's racism, so standing against racism was a critical piece for him) - Rogers' parroting the KKK line about Obama's mispronounced first name and arabic middle name is blatant racism and should be shunned by any pol worth voting for;

  2. Obama hadn't changed the political landscape yet, making alliances with the right wing superperfluous.  McAuliffe only needs Rogers because he needs racists to fill his numbers against a real progressive.

Webb was in a completely different political environment 4 years ago and Rogers hadn't had his maccaca moment yet.  Let's have our eyes open, shall we?

I agree with Todd.
You're a better blogger than this.


Before responding
You mean Warner, not Webb. Is that right?

[ Parent ]
Recent Diaries
freeforwarding
by: fionamae24 - Sep 06
Insurance Marketing
by: brandyheron - Aug 29
1 Comments

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Syndicate
RSS 2.0
Tip Jar

EMAIL
Send tips & press releases to:
info@newdominionproject.com

Search




Advanced Search


LeftyBlogs Latest

The views expressed on this site are representative solely of the author, and do not necessarily imply endorsement by New Dominion Project staff.
Powered by: SoapBlox