Of course the party isn't using the public criticism of requiring a loyalty pledge as the reason for the reversal, but the fact that the Democrats are also going to be holding their Presidential primary on the same day. According to the AP article, GOP leaders argue that this means there is less likely to be Democrats or Independents trying to influence the outcome of the Republican primary.
This logic, however, doesn't make very much sense because it has been known for quite some time that February 12 was the likely date for the Virginia Democrats to hold their primary for at least 8 months now. Therefore, the Republican leaders shouldn't be having this sudden realization that Democrats have their own primary that day. In other words, this is just another example of how some members of the Republican leadership in Virginia simply don't know how to be straight forward and honest with the public.
As some of you may already know, there is a special election today in Virginia. The race is for the right to represent Virginia's 1st Congressional District after Rep. Jo Ann Davis passed away earlier in the year. Although Democrat Phil Forgit is a great candidate and has really rallied his supporters, this is a heavily republican district so his supporters will really have to turn out if we hope to take over this seat.
There is an open thread taking place over at Daily Kos and at Raising Kaine (Virginia's top group blog).
crossposted on Ambivalent Mumblings
Ian Welsh recently wrote an interesting post at the blog The Agonist which draws attention to a study that found that many people with a strong moral code will go to the extreme in order to accomplish a goal that they believe will benefit society. In the study, for instance, the researchers found that people with a strong sense of morals might cheat on an exam if it will help the normally moral person achieve their goal of becoming a doctor or something else beneficial to society.
In his post, Ian mentions that there is also the plain and simple fact that we all have slightly different moral codes.
The problem with this study is that it takes something that is a variable, the question of "what is moral" and assumes it. If a "moral" person doesn't see cheating, for example, as immoral, then to them it isn't. Morality is intensely malleable depending on circumstances, culture and upbringing. If you know that gays are bad, or abortion is murder, or that your nation is the best and worth killing for, then there is no immorality in shunning gays, killing abortionists (based on the thinking that if someone is murdering hundreds it is moral to kill to stop them) or in obeying orders to kill in wartime (which boils down to murder, when you get right down to it).
The more certain you are of your moral code, the easier it is to justify doing what others might consider immoral acts in pursuit of what, for you, is the true morality.
Ian's conclusions are most definitely thought provoking and I'm not sure if I agree with all of them, but they could shine a little light on the recent elections here in Virginia. Why? Because I've heard many people argue that they believe the 2007 elections were extremely negative and were far worse than anything they've seen before. When you have one candidate who in the course of running for the House of Delegates broke a clean campaign pledge during his primary and falsely accused his opponent in the general election of profiting off the War in Iraq and condoning torture, I'd say people have a valid argument here.
As much as the general public might believe negative campaigns are at least slightly immoral, however, the actual study's results would suggest that some candidates might view running an extremely negative campaign merely as an acceptable method to use in order to obtain the moral job of serving in public office. And as Ian might put it, "If a moral person doesn't see" breaking a clean campaign pledge, falsely accusing someone of condoning torture and profiting off a war, "as immoral, then to them it isn't."
I suppose what I'm really getting at is; Even though you might have to discuss some negative topics during a campaign, especially if you want to defeat an incumbent, is there any valid reasoning behind running a predominately negative campaign or blatantly breaking a campaign pledge?
As the primary season for the 2008 presidential election is rapidly approaching, I began to wonder what each candidate might do if he or she did not become the next President of the United States. More specifically, I wondered which candidates would still hold public office and therefore made up the following list which refers to how much time each candidate would have left in their current terms after the 2008 elections.
Term Ends in 2008What stood out the most to me is the fact that there are only two Republican candidates -- Senators Sam Brownback and John McCain -- who would remain in office if the weren't elected President. On the other hand, there are only two Democrats currently serving in office who would not hold public office if they lost the presidential election. Furthermore, none of the front-runners from either side of the aisle would lose their jobs if they didn't win the presidency.
Sen. Joe Biden, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Tom Tancredo, Rep. Duncan Hunter
Two years left after 2008
Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Chris Dodd, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Barack Obama, Gov. Bill Richardson
Four years left after 2008
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Not currently in office
John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Gravel, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson
Now does this information really mean anything when it comes to the election? Probably not, but one could argue that the people risking their position in public office might have an added incentive to win. Nonetheless, it is a rather interesting tibit of information to look at.
There is no doubt that the internet has played a significant role in recent elections. Many people, in fact, often attribute the enormous amounts of money donated to the various presidential campaigns at least in part to the fact that it is easy for millions of people to donate what they can here and there over the internet. That ease of donations, however, has apparently resulted in some debate about how the funds donated through organizations such as ActBlue.
As Kos pointed out in a post over at the Daily Kos earlier today, the Edwards campaign inquired with the FEC about whether or not funds received from ActBlue could be used towards the matching grants the campaign received from public financing. The reason the Edwards campaign had to inquire is because matching funds are not available when the donations are written on checks from accounts managed by a “committee, corporation, union or government contractor” -- even if they represent funds donated by individuals. Even though ActBlue is simply forwarding on donations received from individuals and doesn’t is primarily a resource for various candidates to use, it technically is writing a check from a committee account and would therefore be ineligible for the matching grants.
Kos has a brief description of, and links to a PDF file of, the Edwards campaign reasoning behind why the change in fundraising techniques justifies a relaxation of this rule when it comes to organizations like ActBlue. I highly recommend going over to become more familiar with the arguments. However, come back over and tell us what you think. Should funds donated through ActBlue be eligible for matching grants?
In addition to the presence of several electeds and current candidates, free food, and the company of fellow Democrats, one of the draws for the event was the fact that there was a presidential straw poll. With a crowd of over 400, the percentage of the vote received by each candidates goes as follows:
Clinton 35
Obama 24
Edwards 18
Richardson 10
Biden 7
Kucinich 3
Dodd 2
Gravel Read More »
As one of the people I was watching the CNN presidential debate with last night pointed out, for instance, there has been some discussion about how the former Senator had a reputation of being lazy. Perhaps to the chagrin of his supporters, the belief that Thompson might not have the drive needed for the campaign and the difficulties of being president isn’t just a concept being casually discussed among Democrats. It was also discussed in an article published by Newsweek that pointed out how he “was known to duck out of late-night debates” and “maintained a less rigorous schedule than his colleagues” during his years in the Senate.
In a move that reminds me of former senator and presidential hopeful George Allen, however, Thompson hoped to dismiss criticism for the lack of commitment that he sometimes displayed by claiming that the pace of the Senate was just plain frustrating. Considering that Allen lost what many people believed was just going to be a warm up for a presidential bid, it’s probably not a good idea for Thompson to be looking to Allen’s campaign for how to respond to criticism.
Since Thompson has now filed the paperwork necessary to start raising money, one might be wise to assume that his record will probably be closer examined by potential rivals. So the question then becomes - How will the former senator respond to these attacks and will he still be viewed as rescuing the GOP from an undesirable batch of candidates.
Posts