Of Icebergs and Ideologies: Democrats and Republicans--an allegory

It's a little known fact that there were two groups of Americans traveling aboard the RMS Titanic that were returning from two separate group tours in Europe. One group was composed entirely of Republicans, the other was made up of Democrats.

When Titanic struck the iceberg and began to sink, these two groups, by pure coincidence, rushed to the same lifeboat. They quickly boarded the lifeboat and were lowered over the side, apparently to safety.

The Head Republican shouted, "If we're going to get through this, we've got to get organized!"

This made sense to everyone, so the Head Democrat shouted, "Quick, Democrats sit on the left side of the boat and Republicans on the right side." The occupants of the boat quickly shuffled to their proper spots. There were considerably more Democrats than Republicans, so some of the Democrats sat more in the center of the boat. These center Democrats said this was to balance the lifeboat.

Now it so happened that, like many other lifeboats from Titanic, this lifeboat had been launched half empty by the rushed and panicky crew. There was room for many more people and more than a thousand ordinary people were still stranded on the sinking ship.

"Hey," said the Head Democrat, "we should really go back and try and save some of those people."

"I'm not so sure," said the Head Republican, "they might swamp the boat if we go back."

"Yes," said the Head Republican's Wife, "and what's more I don't want to have to wait in line to get aboard the rescue ship."

"If those people had planned ahead more," another Republican interjected, "then they would have bought better seats on the ship, closer to the lifeboats. It's their fault if they drown or freeze to death."

"But don't we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings?" asked the Head Democrat.

"That's socialism," said the Head Republican. The Head Republican's Wife gasped when her husband uttered the "S" word aloud.

"What about our duty as Christians?" asked the Head Democrat's wife.

"It's God's will that those people are going to die," the Head Republican's Wife replied. "It would be sinful--and kind of inconvenient--to interfere with God's will."

Even so, those Democrats sitting on the far left of the lifeboat decided that something needed to be done. They took the oars on their side of the lifeboat and fitted them to the oarlocks. Then they began rowing.

In the distance the Titanic began her final plunge, dumping more than a thousand screaming people into the frigid water of the North Atlantic.

"We've got to help those people," shouted the Head Democrat. "Row faster!"

So the Democrats on the far left began rowing as hard as they could. The Republicans and the Democrats sitting in the center of the boat sat quietly, doing nothing. A funny thing happened: the harder the Democrats on the left rowed, the farther the lifeboat veered to the right.

"Row faster!" Commanded the Head Democrat. But the harder the Democrats rowed, the more the boat turned, until finally the lifeboat was simply turning in circles to the right, going nowhere.

"Alright, hang on," said the Head Democrat, "everyone take a break."

While the Democrats on the far left lay exhausted on their oars, gasping for breath, the Head Democrat tried to get the Democrats in the center to help.

"Couldn't you guys reach across and row some on the right side of the boat?"

"We've been thinking," said a Democrat from Connecticut, "maybe these Republicans have a point. Maybe letting some of those people onto the lifeboat will swamp it."

"Yes, and I hate waiting in lines too," said a Democrat from Arkansas.

The Democrats became involved in a lively debate amongst themselves as to whether or not they should keep trying to rescue the people struggling in the frigid water. They had to shout to make themselves heard above the screams and suffering cries of the dying, and they paid little attention to the Republicans.

THUMP! THUMP! THUMP!

The Democrats' debate was interrupted by the sound of metal chopping into the wood of the lifeboat's hull. Several of the Republicans had taken out axes and they were busily chopping into the lifeboat.

"What the hell are you doing?!?" shouted the Democrats in horror.

"We've been talking amongst ourselves," said the Head Republican, "and we've decided we'd all be better off with our own individual share of the lifeboat."

"It's called 'ownership,' you damned hippie," said the Head Republican's Wife, as she wrenched a plank out of the side of the lifeboat.

A Democrat on the left asked one of the center Democrats why he wasn't trying to stop the Republicans from tearing up the lifeboat.

"Well, maybe they have a point," a Democrat from Nebraska said, "maybe we should let them opt out and take their part of the lifeboat with them."

The Head Democrat's Wife shouted in frustration, "Don't you understand that we need the entire boat to stay afloat if we are going to survive?!?"

"THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!" screamed the Head Republican's Wife, and she whacked the nearest Democrat over the head with her plank. "Everybody fill your hands, before the Socialist Democrats try to take our half of the lifeboat!"

The Republicans responded immediately, ripping several more planks from the right side of the lifeboat and brandishing them menacingly. The frigid North Atlantic flooded into the lifeboat. The sudden influx of water tipped the boat to the right.

"We're winning! We're winning!" shouted the Republicans.

The lifeboat capsized, rolling to the right, pitching everyone in the boat into the icy water. The Republicans took their planks and paddled away into the darkness, where they all soon died.

A handful of Democrats clung to the wreck of the lifeboat, surviving just a little longer than the Republicans. Just before they slipped into hypothermia-induced unconsciousness, a center Democrat turned to one of the Democrats who had sat on the left side of the boat.

"You know, none of this would have happened if you hadn't tried to save those people."

And then the remaining Democrats passed out and froze to death in the cold water, as they pretty much deserved to do.

New blog carnival: The American Civil War Roundtable

I've decided to start up a new blog carnival devoted to the American Civil War. The American Civil War Roundtable will publish twice a month, on the second and fourth Thursday. The deadline for our first edition is November 25th, and it will be published on November 27th. This edition will accept submissions about any facet of the American Civil War, but preference will be given to articles about events leading up to the war.

More about how bad the Deeds campaign was

I nearly went to this event--I'm glad I skipped it:

Long before the Westin Hotel served as scene for a downer Deeds post-election prom, there was another party. It was held on a warm summertime evening at the home of a well-connected Richmond couple on Cherokee Road. The couple, which asked to remain anonymous, was hosting a Deeds meet-and-greet for potential big-money campaign supporters and volunteers.

Though the candidate's attendance was promised, Deeds never showed.

"They brought in a bunch of prominent people all based on the idea that Deeds would be there," says a longtime party fundraiser who attended the event.

"It's kind of funky to go to a party expecting to get the gubernatorial candidate and you get a 19-year-old girl instead — wearing flip-flops. I don’t know her exact age, but she was powerful young. It was quite disconcerting."

In addition to her lack of proper footwear, she arrived without literature, bumper stickers or yard signs. "I was horrified when I saw her," says a woman who attended the event. "The people who were there were well-known volunteers. Not only was it disappointing, it was embarrassing."

The story above is from an article in this week's Style Weekly, and it illustrates perfectly what went wrong with the Deeds campaign. The movers and shakers who had been invited to this fundraiser had been expecting Deeds himself. Instead they got a 19-year old girl who didn't have the sense (or experience) to dress properly. Even more telling, to me at least, was the fact that she showed up empty handed, without any visibility swag: yard signs, bumper stickers, and literature.

Political reporters and pundits are spinning all kinds of stories about whether this election was a referendum on Obama or if it points to some kind of tectonic shift in the political landscape of Virginia. In doing so they are ignoring the simple obvious truth: Creigh Deeds couldn't campaign his way out of a wet paper bag. Furthermore, people who can campaign well apparently make Creigh Deeds uncomfortable, so he tends to avoid them and surrounds himself with other people who can't campaign their way out of paper bags.

There's so much wrong with this scenario it beggars the mind. Sometimes when I am confronted with this kind of catastrophe the only way I can make sense of it is to make a list, try and break down all the different elements. Let's see what went wrong here.

1. The candidate no-showed a crowd of wealthy people who were potential donors to his campaign, thereby offending them.

2. Having already offended said donors by no-showing, Deeds then sent the most junior person on his campaign staff instead of rounding up a respectable (and respected) stand-in, and as a result the offended donors now feel insulted.

3. Instead of being dressed properly in a business suit or skirt and blouse (dressed as if she was going to a business meeting, which is precisely where she was going) the person Deeds sent was dressed inappropriately, heaping more insult on top of the would be donors.

4. The young, inappropriately-dressed surrogate showed up empty-handed when she should have brought lots of swag. Along with the donors, there were probably a lot of local activists in the room as well, people like me who tend to donate a lot of time and experience, as opposed to money. When the Deeds representative showed up empty handed, these people no doubt looked at each other and thought the same thing: "this campaign doesn't have its shit together." Did the young lady forget and leave them at the office? Was she too inexperienced to know she should bring them? Or did someone else forget to order them? Or did someone fail to ship the supplies from Deeds' headquarters in Charlottesville?

When you consider all the implications suggested by the failure of this event (and others, like Deeds' failure to make a showing at the Carytown Watermelon Festival), then you begin to realize that there's no reason to get into ideology or Barack Obama or any other esoteric explanation for Deeds' failure.

Bob McDonnell and his campaign team demonstrated that they were skillful, well-organized, and hardworking campaigners. They were matched against a Deeds campaign that quite simply couldn't tie its own shoelaces. It's really just as simple as that.

The invisible campaign of Creigh Deeds

It's been a week and a day since Creigh Deeds and the Democratic Party of Virginia suffered an epic defeat in Virginia's gubernatorial elections. I still find myself unable or unwilling to write a large omnibus "why Deeds failed" post, so I will just try and touch quickly on another subject--campaign visibility--before another headache is triggered.

How bad were Creigh Deeds' visibility and branding efforts? Well, let's put it this way: on election night the majority of news anchors and political commentators, people who are well-paid to be knowledgeable about such things, were unable to correctly pronounce Deeds' first name.

How badly have your branding efforts fail when the people who are paid to be aware of your campaign and cover it and report on it are uncertain as to whether your name is "Craig" or "Cray" or "Cree"? Should it surprise anyone then that the average Virginia voter seemed to be unable to pronounce Deeds' name? If you can't pronounce someone's name can you really identify with him?

What then was Deeds doing to try and boost his name recognition? Was he attending festivals? Was he passing out yard signs, lapel stickers, balloons, t-shirts . . . anything? Well, for a long time, in Richmond at least, it was nothing. Let's compare some pictures shall we?

One of the largest annual street festivals in Virginia is the Ukrops Carytown Watermelon Festival, which occurs in August, just before the beginning of the post-Labor Day campaign season. Here's a photo of the festival to give the flavor of the event (this one is from 2006).

This photo should give you some idea about the size of the crowd. The festival stretches several blocks along West Cary, from Nansemond nearly all the way to the Boulevard. By most estimates, it draws a crowd in excess of 100,000 over the course of a day. Think of it: 100,000 Richmonders and other Virginians packed on to a few blocks.

Now, look at the kinds of visibility that can be done at this event. These are also from 2006.







These photos show Democrats and Republicans engaged in all different kinds of retail politics using balloons, stickers, brochures, yards signs, lapel stickers . . . you name it. Both Allen and Webb supporters working on visibility.

Now let's look at a photo from this year.

This was the Republican tent on the edge of the Watermelon Festival. Nothing too elaborate, just the right amount of effort. A presence. Visibility.

Now I'd like to show you a picture of the Deeds' table at this year's Watermelon Festival, but I can't because Deeds didn't bother to show up or send any staffers or volunteers to man a table in his absence. Now consider the following.

The photos from the 2006 Watermelon Festival were taken on August 13, 2006. In these pictures we see a motivated and well organized Democratic Party (and to be fair the Republicans were well organized as well). The very next day, on August 14, 2006, the "Macaca" story broke in the Washington Post.

The picture from this year's festival was taken on August 9, 2009. It reveals a solid Republican organization and the fact that Creigh Deeds lacked any kind of organization on the ground in Richmond--paid or volunteer--capable of manning a visibility table. Twenty days later, on August 29, 2009, the Washington Post broke the story of Bob McDonnell's thesis.

In 2006 the Webb campaign was already up and running in early August and was ready to take advantage of the opportunity created when Allen stumbled. In early August 2009, the Deeds campaign was basically non-existent on the ground in Richmond for all intents and purposes. There was no Deeds campaign to take advantage of McDonnell's thesis.

How can a campaign establish visibility and a brand for its candidate when it doesn't even show up?

Saturday Night at the Byrd Theatre

A good crowd turned out to see Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds."

"Macaca" and "Thesis-gate" revisited

This is a repost of an analysis I published on September 5, 2009, under the title "The difference between 'Macaca' and McDonnell's 'Thesis Scandal'":

A handful of conservative blogs are trumpeting the news that the recent discovery and publication of Bob McDonnell's masters thesis doesn't seem to be hurting him in the polls. McDonnell continues to maintain a healthy lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds.

These conservative bloggers are putting a predictable line of spin on the news. "See," they say, "the thesis was a phony ginned up attack, just as 'Macaca' was a phony ginned up attack. Only this time, the phony ginned up attack isn't going anywhere."

Not surprisingly, their spin is all wrong. But they are right about one thing: the thesis scandal doesn't seem to be going anywhere. So it strikes me that it might be worth examining the differences between the "Macaca" and the "thesis scandal."

First, let's dispense with the conservatives' central theme: both "Macaca" and the "thesis scandal" are real, substantive issues with the potential--realized potential in the case of "Macaca"--to affect the outcome of an election. "Macaca" revealed George Allen's problematic attitudes towards race. Race was, and remains, a serious issue in Virginia politics. The "thesis scandal" is about sexism, homophobia, and a rather detailed plan to use government power to implement a program of discrimination and harassment of working women and gays. Both of these issues are real.

Next, let's look at the striking parallels between "Macaca" and the "thesis scandal." Both stories were broken by The Washington Post (in the case of "Macaca," with an assist from Not Larry Sabato). The timing is strikingly similar as well. "Macaca" broke on August 13, 2006 and the "thesis scandal" broke in late August of this year. Both George Allen and Bob McDonnell strongly denied that they were racist (in Allen's case) or sexist and homophobic (in McDonnell's case). Both "Macaca" and the "thesis scandal" received a lot of coverage in the traditional media.

It's easy to see the many parallels between these two episodes. One dramatically altered the course of an election, the other doesn't seem to be having any impact at all. Why?

Let's look at some of the differences.

"Macaca" was a video clip a little more than a minute long. It had a direct, visceral impact on anyone who watched it. McDonnell's masters thesis is 93 pages of dense, difficult to read, religio-babble. Like most screeds of its kind, it isn't easy for the non-believer to get through. Simply stated, the "thesis scandal" is a lot more challenging to absorb than "Macaca."

There are important differences between the two scandals in timing and response. "Macaca" occurred about three days before it broke. McDonnell's masters thesis was written about twenty years ago. McDonnell's campaign has focused its efforts on playing down his thesis as old news, something he really doesn't believe anymore. McDonnell can get away with this because there isn't video of McDonnell acting on his clearly stated beliefs. McDonnell has expressed strong homophobic feelings in recent years and has acted to keep women from getting equal pay for equal work, but there isn't a snappy minute-long video demonstrating this.

In contrast, Allen's campaign badly mismanaged their response to "Macaca." Instead of acknowledging his error and moving on with a sincere apology, Allen made the insane statement that he'd never used the "n" word, that it "had never been a part of his vocabulary." This bald-faced lie was an invitation for people to step out of Allen's past to testify to the many occasions when Allen had used the "n" word and engaged in other kinds of racist behavior.

The contrast between McDonnell's response and Allen's response couldn't be greater. Allen's response can be summarized as "I am good now, and I have always been good." McDonnell's response can be summed up as "I was misguided then, but I am a good man now." Does anyone seriously doubt that McDonnell is a misogynist and a homophobe? In effect, McDonnell's skillful response has allowed him to peg his current misogyny and homophobia to a 20-year old paper and jettison it, pushing his present into his past. In contrast, Allen's clumsy response invited closer scrutiny of his past. Allen's response brought his past into his present, with disastrous consequences for his campaign.

The single greatest difference between "Macaca" and the "thesis scandal"--and probably the most determinative of the different outcomes--is the different approaches and levels of preparedness of the two Democratic campaigns opposed to Allen and McDonnell respectively. In August 2006, the Webb campaign had just pulled itself together and gelled. The handoff from the volunteers who ran the primary to the professionals who ran the general had just been completed. After stewing for two months over the summer, the Webb campaign had found a new sense of purpose and organization. Even before the "Macaca" story broke, the Webb campaign was organized, motivated, and surging on the ground.

When the "Macaca" incident occurred, the Webb campaign decided to let the story out, but then limit the campaign's direct involvement. The video was given to the Washington Post and Ben Tribbett of Not Larry Sabato, and was picked up on and effectively fanned by the well-organized and motivated Leftyblog community. From that point on, the Webb campaign had little involvement in the "Macaca" story. It didn't need to: the story had taken on a life of its own. The Webb campaign had a strategy and worked to implement it, and allowed the "Macaca" story to play itself out--benefitting from it, but not distracted by it.

Fast forward to August 2009. The Deeds campaign is still largely invisible in central Virginia, choosing instead to focus on tiny towns west of Charlottesville. The Deeds organization has failed to build an effective grassroots organization and has largely ignored the netroots. The powerful Virginia Leftyblog juggernaut of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 has largely been sidelined by the Deeds campaign's not-so-benign neglect.

The Deeds campaign doesn't seem to have a statewide campaign strategy and, in lieu of said strategy, has grasped onto the "thesis scandal" with both hands. The "thesis scandal" has taken over the Deeds campaign in a way that "Macaca" was never allowed to do to the Webb campaign.

These are the factors I think are driving the different results in the "Macaca" and the "thesis scandal" scenarios. The key take away here is that a stumble like "Macaca" or the "thesis scandal" are not things to organize a campaign around. Events like these create opportunities that well-organized, highly motivated campaigns can take advantage of, but if your campaign is unready or disorganized, then you cannot exploit a "Macaca"-like stumble.

I wish I'd been wrong, but my analysis seems to have been pretty much on target.

Did Obama cost Deeds the election?

The time has come to begin talking about the epic failure of the Democratic Party of Virginia in this year's state elections.

I've been mulling over the thought of writing a single epic post describing every aspect of this year's failure and then offering some suggestions as to how to avoid making the same mistakes again in the future. I find I don't have the heart to write such a post. When I reflect on the many unforced errors in the Democratic campaigns for too long, I get a headache. I will have to deal with this topic piecemeal, in small bites that can be completed before the inevitable headache arrives.

This evening I'd like to address the question of whether Barack Obama somehow cost Creigh Deeds the governor's mansion in this year's election. The honest answer to this question is "yes" and "no", and "hell no."

The Republican Party of Virginia has been able to use Barack Obama effectively as a rallying point for its base. That fact is central to understanding what happened this year.

This year's election was a base election with low turnout. Turning out the base of each party was the key to winning. The fact that Barack Obama is president was an effective motivational tool for the Republican Party of Virginia. In this limited sense, Barack Obama's presidency was a drag on Creigh Deeds' campaign.

But in another sense, Barack Obama wasn't a drag on Creigh Deeds' campaign. This year's election was, remember, a base election. Barack Obama is wildly popular with the base(s) of the Democratic Party. There isn't a single important Democratic Party constituency that doesn't greatly admire and respect Barack Obama.

Why did Creigh Deeds keep Barack Obama at arm's length until the very last moment? Did Deeds really believe that a huge number of independents were going to show up and vote this year? The people who hate Barack Obama were never going to vote for Creigh Deeds anyway, so why did he feel the need to pander to their feelings?

Why slight the feelings of voters who like Barack Obama? In this sense it wasn't Barack Obama who hurt Creigh Deeds, it was Deeds' own decision to try and distance himself from a man who is wildly popular with the base of the Democratic Party of Virginia: Barack Obama.

Now then, if we step back and consider the "yes" and the "no" and try to balance between the two, we are confronted with a few facts.

It is true that Virginia has shown a tendency to vote for governor for the party that is not the president's party. Creigh Deeds knew that going in. If he didn't think he could overcome that particular jinx he should have stepped aside.

It was also equally obvious that Barack Obama would be the focal point of the Republican Party of Virginia's attacks. Creigh Deeds should have been prepared for that too, and if he didn't feel up to the job of being a Democrat in 2009, he should have stepped aside.

Bob McDonnell did have more money than Deeds, but not as badly as might have been, and in part because of Deeds' own actions. As discussed above, the Republican base was fired up, ready to volunteer and write checks for Bob McDonnell. What of it? George Allen outspent Jim Webb 2-to-1 and was still defeated by Webb's ragtag army of volunteers.

If Creigh Deeds found himself lacking funds, then perhaps he should examine his own behavior. Who does Creigh Deeds suppose donors to political campaigns are? In this writer's experience political donors can be broken into two groups: people who believe in something and people who want something.

Bob McDonnell hit the sweet spot: he was able to draw on lobbyists who wanted favors they were unable to get under Warner and Kaine as well as the angry base of Republican true believers.

Creigh Deeds hurt his ability to fund raise among Democrats by constantly stepping back from basic Democratic policy positions. He also disappeared after the primaries were over, vanishing into a part of the state that contains less than a seventh of the state's population and considerably less than a seventh of its wealth. On top of that, as soon as Deeds began looking like a loser, the lobbyist money dried up too.

Barack Obama wasn't responsible for Creigh Deeds' fundraising problems: Creigh Deeds was.

When you consider all of these factors and take them as a whole, it's easy to see that Creigh Deeds was hurt by Barack Obama's absence, and Barack Obama was absent because Creigh Deeds wanted him to be absent.

If Creigh Deeds didn't want Barack Obama in Virginia drumming up the Democratic base, whose fault is that? If Creigh Deeds didn't want Barack Obama fundraising for him, whose fault is that? Bringing Barack Obama to Virginia would have fired up the Democratic Party's base.

The Republican Party's base was already fired up, and it's hard to see how having Barack Obama in Richmond could have provoked the Republicans more than having Barack Obama across the Potomac in the White House already had. Deeds gave up all the advantages of having Barack Obama as a friend without losing any of the disadvantages of having him as a president.

In conclusion then, I must say that it seems to me that any contribution Barack Obama may have made to the defeat of Creigh Deeds was dwarfed by Deeds' own failures.

Enough for now: I feel a headache coming on.

"Cinemaphiles: The Byrd Theatre"

"Cinemaphiles: The Byrd Theatre" is a really interesting documentary from 2007 about Richmond's Byrd Theatre. It also looks back briefly to the Biograph Theater and the last ditch attempts to keep that legendary small arthouse theater open. See the documentary here.

Draft dodger Tancredo flees after being called out by veteran

Wow, I mean, just, wow

How bad was the Deeds campaign? Now that the campaign is over, we can finally start talking about it. First out of the gate is Kyle Blankenship with this amazing revelation about the kind of lunacy that reigned in the Deeds campaign:

Then, in September, I got a call from two of her staff and a volunteer asking me if I would come to the office. I was told that Sheila had been going on near daily rants about how I, and others, were "cowards" with "no loyalty or character" because we supported another Democrat in the primary. According to some on her staff, anyone who supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary as I did, was a "f*!#ing racist". They asked me to come to the office and confront her in front of the whole staff, as they said "they couldn't take it anymore." I declined to do so, but I did contact the campaign to voice my displeasure at having my character under attack by someone like Sheila who was working for Deeds/DPVA. I was assured they would speak to her, and it would stop; though I found out later, it never did.

So one of Deeds' paid staffers was devoting significant time and energy to attacking a campaign volunteer when she should have been working to elect Creigh Deeds? Wow.

No wonder Creigh Deeds failed so completely to reunite Virginia Democrats after the primary: his own staff was working hard to alienate possible allies and supporters. Read the entire amazing story here.

Gubernatorial candidates to vote today

Virginia's 2009 Governor's race is finally nearing its end.  Today the two major party candidates will head to the polls to cast their votes.  We caught up with the two candidates last night and asked them about their votes.
 
"I'm voting first thing in the morning, then I'm hitting the road for a series of campaign events, culminating it tonight's victory party where, I hope to be celebrating a win," said former Attorney General Bob McDonnell.  We asked him about his vote and he answered forcefully.  "I'm voting for myself, of course.  I'm in this thing to win it.  Also, I'm a staunch Republican, so I'm voting a straight Republican ticket."
 
We caught up with Democrat Creigh Deeds a little later and asked him about his vote.  "I'm holding out," the Democratic candidate told us.  "I'm weighing my options and everything is on the table.  There are lots of options and everything is in play." 
 
We asked him about whether he at least planned to vote for the rest of the Democratic candidates.  "It's possible," he told us.  "Would you hold it against me if I did?  I'm really moderate . . . don't want to look too partisan, you know.  All the options are on the table."

Giant silver cylinders rain from the sky

I'm waiting for a flight in Charlotte, NC and just checked my e-mail and news feeds. I'm hearing strange reports of large cylinders raining from the sky, with a heavy concentration in New Jersey. It's unclear how this may affect John Corzine's re-election in next Tuesday's election.

Probably nothing to worry about.