Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Behind Cantor’s Big Loss

—

by

Peter Galuszka
in , , , ,

cantorBy Peter Galuszka

There’s big political news tonight as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor loses a Republican primary to upstart economics professor David Brat, a Tea Party favorite.

While Brat’s challenge was noticed nationally, few expected Cantor to go down. But with more than 80 percent of precincts in the 7th Congressional District reporting, there’s no way Cantor can catch up.

There are a lot of takeaways from this defeat which has attracted national attention. Some of them are rather ugly. Here’s a quick list:

  • Republicans can’t play it both ways. They can’t be Bushies and vote for his big spending programs and then try to lead the parade of the Tea Party insurgency. That’s phony and voters know it
  • Brat sadly chose to run against immigrants, notably those here outright illegally or who perhaps lack documents because of ICE bureaucracy or were brought here as children. Some resolution is badly needed but Brat’s successful milking of this issue pushed resolution back for months if not years. The issue should be met with compassion, not nativist American hatred, which Brat has chosen.
  • The dynamics of Henrico County and the Richmond power structure have changed dramatically. Cantor was the home-grown boy, heir to Tom Bliley and he had everybody in his pocket, especially the old Richmond power structure and the Richmond Times-Dispatch. His wife was on the board of Media General, the former owner of the newspaper, and it predictably loved everything young Eric did. He was like the Paul Trible of yesteryear. But MG screwed up financially and had to sell out to Warren Buffett. While the editorial stances haven’t changed, the shakeup by the Sage of Omaha means a lot under the surface.
  • Does this mean there’s a resurgence of the Tea Party? The national media will see it that way. To be honest, I haven’t really figured the Tea Party out. I don’t know if they are tri-cornered hat crazies or serious Libertarians.

The old order is fading. The old coziness and sense of entitlement are gone.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

34 responses to “Behind Cantor’s Big Loss”

  1. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the election map is interesting:

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2014/results/primaries/virginia?smid=tw-thecaucus

  2. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    I’m surprised but not that surprised.

    First, I think Cantor was taken off guard. I don’t get the sense that he worked this election very hard. Brat did. His organization didn’t have anyone at the polls in my precinct. Brad’s organization did.

    Second, his despicable attacks on Brat as a “liberal college professor” probably backfired on him. It took no effort for voters to see that the charges were total B.S. Despite being called on the carpet by many different sources, Cantor continued the ads. It made him look like a prevaricating Washington insider. If that’s the best shot he could take against Brat, he was shooting blanks. Republicans weren’t impressed.

    Third, Brat worked this election really hard. My wife and I were gardening in our front yard one Sunday afternoon when Brat and a lad whom I took to be his son came wandering through our subdivision. He was out knocking on doors and introducing himself to neighbors. I doubt Cantor has knocked on a single door in years. I saw him around town a couple of times but he was always surrounded by his security guards and/or minions. He did not mix with the public. He seemed unapproachable.

    Fourth, I knew something was up when Brat came on strong in the last few days with loads of ads. I don’t know where the money came from but he did have money to spend. Someone was backing him. A Tea Party guy working the polls told me that Brat appeared on the Glenn Beck show and got loads of free publicity — and $17,000 in contributions poured in the next day. I’m sure it was mostly small contributions.

    Finally, I think people sensed that Cantor was vaguely conservative but also an opportunist, a light weight and lacking in core principles. He took the fight to Obama but not very effectively. Assuming he wins the election in November, David Brat will take the fight to Obama.

    When a small-town college professor can take out the second most powerful man in the House of Delegates backed by zillions in special-interest money, I don’t care what your politics are or what you think of David Brat, it’s a reminder that Democracy still works in America. The plutocracy has not yet cemented its hold on country.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      well… not so much Democracy perhaps as a mere 70,000 people voted in a Congressional District with 750,000 people of about 380,000 folks voted in the 2012 general election.

      in the 2012 election –
      Eric – Cantor 222,983
      E. Wayne Powell 158,012

      so 223,000 folks voted GOP in 2012 and 1/3 of them voted in this primary and of that third, a litte more than half were card-carrying tea party AND/OR disaffected with Cantor specifically and sought opportunity to flush him.

      so I , yes me … got a letter in the mail from Mr. Brat the DAY BEFORE the election – telling me that Cantor said that Brat was going to kill social security and that it was a dastardly, bald faced lie and that what Brat really said was that Social Security had 127 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that it could not pay…. which is not exactly the truth either but I digress.

      so I’m not generally known as a hard core GOP supporter much less a tea party guy – so why did I get this letter and how many others like me – got it?

      and my suspects is that this was, perhaps a massive mailing reaching more than known GOP supporters… but that’s purely speculation on my part – but a curious data point. I’ve voted GOP before but not in Va in a decade.

      Finally, if not mistaken, his November Democratic opponent REALLY IS a liberal professor and not only that – he teaches at the SAME College !

      Okay, enough blather – here’s the big question –

      are the folks who voted for Cantor not only in this primary but in the 2012 general election – going to hang tight with the GOP brand in an apparently Uber Right Brat in the upcoming general election in November?

      Are most all GOP going to vote for an overt Tea Party message like Cuccinelli did or is Brat going to tone it down enough for most traditional GOP to find him acceptable instead of staying home?

      no love lost for Cantor – I always felt he was a weasel’s weasel and the only principles he really stood on was what he thought benefited him personally and he got caught trying to play politics with the far right, who by the way, could easily be heard in the right wing blogs all along about their distaste for Cantor … their hard core feelings about immigration and their disgust with the negative campaigning (never heard them complain about negative campaigning about Dems though!).

      so to Cantor:

      http://youtu.be/jGMQU2ru9qo

  3. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
    LifeOnTheFallLine

    Tea Party favorite beats Tea Party favorite!

    Is it too late for the Democrats to field a candidate in the 7th?

    1. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
      LifeOnTheFallLine

      Oop, nevermind…it seems Jack Tramell is going to the Democratic challenger.

  4. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    FYI – a post on one Virginia Virtucon:

    http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/2011-when-i-met-dave-brat-as-an-opponent/

  5. Breckinridge Avatar
    Breckinridge

    The first lesson is the oldest lesson and that is that Cantor was viewed as out of touch with the district and focused on the Bigger Picture. Maybe a bit less time travelling in the gigantic black taxpayer-provided SUV with the massive security detail (please) and a bit more time at the PTA meeting or the mall….When incumbents lose it is because they have screwed up somehow, although certainly there needs to be a viable challenger waiting in the wings. And Brat would be a dream GOP candidate except for the little fact that he had to get past Cantor to get on the ballot. Now he gets his chance.

    His problem is going to be he is smart and honest and has written a whole lot of controversial and debatable material that the Democrats, the media, and his now longer list of GOP enemies will seek to exploit. Some of it probably right here on this blog.

    When the people behind the Tea Party come out from behind the curtain, I see people who were active in the party 20, 25 and 30 years ago. John Pudner was crowing last night and John Pudner is a name long known to me. They are the same movement conservatives who blamed losing candidates in the 80s and 90s for being too moderate, who cheered Ollie North and Maurice Dawkins (before Jackson there was Dawkins.) Right now they are in the ascendency because of the ennui that grips the nation and the economic malaise. Blame it on the illegal immigrants! Ship them all home! Brat may indeed become the new congressman, but I’m pretty well convinced the same formula will not work for statewide elections or the top race in 2016. The Angry White Guy Party is not over 50 percent. Gillespie’s task just got harder in a way.

    But I shoot from the sidelines these days. My hat’s off to those still in the arena, Cantor and Brat both.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      Not sure I agree with your narrative about the political policies on the right now days and 20-30 years ago.

      I think much of the support for BRAT is far right of that 30 years ago of which most GOP of that time period – judged today – by the right – would be clearly labeled as unprincipled establishment types.

      George Bush I and II and Ronald Reagan – all are not held in high esteem by the folks on the right these days.

      Brat said in his letter to me ” If you agree with me that we need leaders who tell the truth….”

      I agree and I hope that he practices that ethic in his general election campaign and speak plainly about what he believes and would vote for.

      People like Cantor were no only weasels on the partisan issues – he was a weasel within the part in his dealings with the tea party folks – and they decided to fix his wagon…

      I’m totally on board with folks who are much further right than I am – as long as they are honest with the voters.. and let the voters choose.

      what I object to is the cowardly fan dancing of those who hold views they know the citizens won’t support – if they knew them.

  6. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
    LifeOnTheFallLine

    Brat promises a return to Judeo-Christian values and then dispatches the last remaining Jewish Republican in Congress. I’m sure my laughter will subside before lunch.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Gee, FallLine, by that logic there would be something wrong if any non-Jewish Republican espousing Judeo-Christian values ever ran against Cantor. Should they all just shut up and go home?

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        looks like Fall Line, “got you” Bacon!

  7. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
    LifeOnTheFallLine

    Dare to dream, Mr. Bacon, dare to dream.

    In all seriousness, I don’t care about this at all, it’s just inherently hilarious that the “big tent” party that keeps chasing its tail regarding outreach and rebranding keeps getting more and more narrow. I almost feel for Brat because had he just said what he meant – Christian values – he probably would have had the shadow of anti-Semitism fall across his campaign. So instead he just becomes a punchline on this particular point.

    I say almost feel bad because I don’t think anyone who aligns with small government, strict Constitutional types has any business dragging their religion into the discussion. But if you’re going to do it and step in it thanks to rhetorical flourish it would be a philosophical betrayal not to point and laugh.

    1. TMT Avatar
      TMT

      How do you feel about the many people who are making religious arguments in favor of extending Medicaid?

      I didn’t follow this race, but I wonder how much impact Obama’s refusal to enforce any immigration laws and signaling the borders are open influenced the primary. A person can support some reasonable changes to the law, while being appalled by the Obama Administration’s malfeasance.

      Obama reminds me of the city fathers of my hometown, St. Paul, MN, who in the 1920s made it clear any criminal was welcome in the City so long as they didn’t commit a crime until they left.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        re: religious arguments –

        are you comparing elected that would FORCE on people certain religious views with providing aid and assistance to people who would voluntarily accept it?

        re: immigration – to say that Obama as done “nothing” is simply not true. He’s not done what the more virulent want done… and neither will the more moderate GOP… but you say this is Obama “malfeasance”? Can you show how Obama’s approach is substantially different than Bush’s approach or many in the more moderate of the GOP? why would you personalize something that is more than Obama’s approach?

        You know TMT, you could at least TRY to not sound like you are as partisan as you do.. since members of the GOP before and after Obama hold a similar view – that you do not, right?

        is that a fair assessment?

        1. TMT Avatar
          TMT

          Larry, what is the difference between making a religious argument in favor of expanding Medicaid or making a religious argument in favor of capital punishment? Or expanding gun control? The bottom line is a policy decision is adopted and supported by religious beliefs. People are affected by these decisions.

          Personally I think anyone has a right to argue based on his or her religious convictions or lack thereof. The Civil Rights movement began with churches and synagogues. People make arguments in favor of, and in opposition to, gay marriage based on their religious views. The UCC supports gay marriage, while the Catholic and Mormon Churches oppose it. I know Catholics who argue for a big government and others who argue the principles of subsidiarity.

          The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a state religion – everyone must join the Baptist Church. It doesn’t prevent Baptists from advocating public policy issues based on their faith any more than it prevents an agnostic from doing the same from his/her lack of faith.

          Laws “force behavior.” Criminal law punishes certain activities. Tax laws coerce people to give up their money. Having to pay more taxes to Richmond or to Uncle Sam is forced behavior as well as banning gay marriage or limiting access to firearms or setting a minimum age for marriage.

          1. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            re: “Larry, what is the difference between making a religious argument in favor of expanding Medicaid or making a religious argument in favor of capital punishment? Or expanding gun control? The bottom line is a policy decision is adopted and supported by religious beliefs. People are affected by these decisions.”

            because the Administration is not making that argument much less claiming it is the role of the govt to force people to do anything – for religious reasons. Do you seriously not see the difference?

            “Personally I think anyone has a right to argue based on his or her religious convictions or lack thereof. The Civil Rights movement began with churches and synagogues. People make arguments in favor of, and in opposition to, gay marriage based on their religious views. The UCC supports gay marriage, while the Catholic and Mormon Churches oppose it. I know Catholics who argue for a big government and others who argue the principles of subsidiarity.”

            again – do you distinguish between a govt required role and individuals personal and voluntary views?

            “The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a state religion – everyone must join the Baptist Church. It doesn’t prevent Baptists from advocating public policy issues based on their faith any more than it prevents an agnostic from doing the same from his/her lack of faith.”

            no it doesn’t but it prevents the govt from incorporating what the Baptists believe into the law of the land.

            you’re a lawyer guy.. do you not see this?

            “Laws “force behavior.” Criminal law punishes certain activities. Tax laws coerce people to give up their money. Having to pay more taxes to Richmond or to Uncle Sam is forced behavior as well as banning gay marriage or limiting access to firearms or setting a minimum age for marriage.”

            paying taxes is forced behavior – I agree but as long as it’s not for paying for specific religious-required policies – how is that different than taxes for anything you do not agree with?

            you basically have specific religious beliefs that prohibit certain behaviors – and you do not think the govt should allow those behaviors.. basically..

            are you not favoring the govt to penalize behaviors that you disagree with on religious grounds?

            the Constitution does not say it cannot have arbitrary laws – it only says that such laws have to apply equally to all – and cannot be based on religion.

            that’s freedom and equality… who would be against that?

          2. TMT Avatar
            TMT

            Larry, you are drawing distinctions that aren’t there. Spending decisions affect people as well as regulations.

            But let’s just talk about regulations. Most religious bodies oppose allowing adults to have sexual relations with children. Isn’t that an imposition? Most religious bodies oppose sex trafficking or rape of any person. These actions are generally prohibited by law. So why isn’t that the incorporation of the Catholic or Mormon or Lutheran or UCC or Baptist religious views? Isn’t a statute against rape or murder incorporating religious views into the law?

            Two centuries ago, many religious groups fought to prevent slavery and to recognize blacks as equal citizens with white people? The laws incorporated religious views. Why the blinders?

          3. larryg Avatar
            larryg

            “Larry, you are drawing distinctions that aren’t there. Spending decisions affect people as well as regulations.”

            Oh they clearly do. but as long as they treat people equally and don’t force religion – they are “Constitutional”.

            “But let’s just talk about regulations. Most religious bodies oppose allowing adults to have sexual relations with children. Isn’t that an imposition? ”

            sure it does..

            “Most religious bodies oppose sex trafficking or rape of any person. These actions are generally prohibited by law. So why isn’t that the incorporation of the Catholic or Mormon or Lutheran or UCC or Baptist religious views? Isn’t a statute against rape or murder incorporating religious views into the law?”

            because the law of the land is not based on religion but upon a separate regulation that is, on purpose, not source to religion or any particular religion.

            “Two centuries ago, many religious groups fought to prevent slavery and to recognize blacks as equal citizens with white people? The laws incorporated religious views. Why the blinders?”

            two centuries ago – people were burned at the stake for NOT subscribing to religious views.

            why the blinders?

            the country was founded – explicitly – to step away from the influence of religion – to develop it’s own laws and regulations that applied to all people – unlike religions that seem to apply differently to different people and genders.

            how can you not see this?

            The Constitution does not rule out things that are found in religions – it rules out religion as the basis …for it.

            you seem to think that because some of it is based on some religious philosophies (like helping others) that – that opens the door to religious having direct influence on laws and regulations.

            how do you not see this – as a lawyer?

      2. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
        LifeOnTheFallLine

        How do you feel about staying on topic?

        But to answer your false equivalent question: I don’t think religious arguments belong in policy debates that are supposed to be rational. I beleive we should pave roads because it’s a net benefit to commuters, not because of some superstitious belief that if one steps on a road crack their mother will suffer a spinal fracture. Likewise, I oppose the death penalty because I don’t think the state’s monopoly on violence should extend to murder and we have a tendency to send too many wrongfully convicted people to their deaths, beside. The dictates of an invisible man who is front and center when some pol proclaims victory but is conveniently located off screen during one of our now-weekly mass shootings don’t matter at all to me.

        But, of course, context matters. If you’re not a small government, strict Constitutionalist type you’re afforded more wiggle room because you belive in a living, maleable document. But using your political position to enshrine religious dogma into legal code is pretty clearly un-Constitutional. Also, if your opponent wants to argue on religious grounds I can find little fault in meeting him on his chosen field of battle, as is the case with most if not all of the folks using religion to argue for Medicaid fighting against people who argue with pocket Constitutions in one pocket and miniature New Testaments in the other.

        Since the Catholic church abandoned its social justice focus in the United States to get some of that sweet evangelical anti-choice money the forces on the left rarely open a debate with religious salvos, butnif taking up those arms is the most successful way to fight hypocrites who argue Jesus would want the government to stone gays and not help people get better access to medical care then so be it.

        Sometimes the devil’s tools are the best method for undoing the devil’s work.

        1. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          man-created religion is a scourge on mankind.

          it is at the root of man’s inhumanity to man …more than anything else.

          there, I said it.

        2. LifeOnTheFallLine Avatar
          LifeOnTheFallLine

          http://mobile.rawstory.com/all/2014-06-11-ok-gop-candidate-let-cities-decide-whether-gays-should-be-stoned-to-death#1

          Just in case anyone thought that stoning gays comment was hyperbole…

  8. Acbar Avatar
    Acbar

    “The first lesson is the oldest lesson and that is that Cantor was viewed as out of touch with the district.” This was a local Republican Party nomination, not a national referendum on the Tea Party. Thank you, JAB and Breck, for reminding us of that.

    But how did Cantor become so out of touch with his district? I happened to drive from Cartersville to Culpeper yesterday, across western Goochland and the breadth of Louisa yesterday, and amidst hundreds of Cantor signs I did not see a single one for Brat. At least around there, Cantor’s people apparently were better organized; yet the voter enthusiasm and turnout across that swath of the 7th evidently went for Brat, according to the NYT map. Was it just the remoteness – the security details – or was it the personality, or was it the message?

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: Cantor signs

      Cantor beat Brat North and west of Hanover.

  9. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    So, let me see if I get this right …

    Republicans have lost election after election in Virginia. They lost all three state-wide elections last Fall. They lost both US Senate seats. They lost the Presidential vote.

    What’s the answer? Find even more conservative candidates! Cantor just wasn’t sufficiently conservative.

    Mark my words – within 20 years Virginia will be politically indistinguishable from the Maryland of today. And it will happen in large part due to the RPV’s inexplicable need to commit suicide.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: ” Find even more conservative candidates! Cantor just wasn’t sufficiently conservative.”

      if you read the right-leaning blogs or listen to Hannity on FAUX news, this should not be news – not just in Va.

      The basic narrative from the right – is that they will get more votes if they replace folks like Cantor with folks further to the right.

      I know that sounds counter-intuitive to “leftists” (folks to their left) but this seems to be what they really believe.

      for what it is worth – I don’t seem rock-ribbed Conservatives in the 7th district who vote GOP -to ever vote for one of those Obama-loving socialist Dems…

      😉

    2. Ghost of Ted Dalton Avatar
      Ghost of Ted Dalton

      I agree. We’re headed for Democratic domination of Virginia for a good 2 to 3 decades. Why? Because Cantor actually wasn’t a cliche. He actually did “deliver the goods” in terms of getting big business to fund the GOP.

      I really think those days are done. Let’s face history: Already, if you talk to your average “West End” family or even the extended “West End”, they’re socially moderate to liberal. You aren’t going to find may 100% pro-life, pro-gun, anti-environment types. They’ve voted Republican the last 15 years for purely economic/historical reasons. With Cantor and Big Business being booted out of the GOP, these people simply don’t have any stomach for Tea Party-Cuccinelli types. I know these people. I grew up with these people. They have nothing in common with the Tea Partiers in Hanover or Louisa. I’m sure you can tell us of similar patterns up in NoVa. The jig is up. Little brother (Tea Party) has consumed Big Brother. Good luck trying to win with Cooch type candidates at the state level in 21st century Virginia.

    3. Neil Haner Avatar
      Neil Haner

      DJ

      Virginia’s GOP faces an interesting problem. It’s controlled the redistricting process for a few cycles now, and as such, the individual disticts by and large run safely “red.” The evidence of this is our gross imbalance in our collections of Representatives (10-3) and Delegates (68-32).

      Yet, you’re right, the state as a whole tends to vote a hair on the “blue” side.

      The state GOP has to walk a fine line as a result. Getting the nominations for the smaller seats means staying as far right as possible, both in campaigns and in your voting record. But making the transition to a statewide election, that hyper-conservative voting record is a hindrance. And as long as lightning-rod issues like the ACA, abortion, immigration, etc hang around and force the conservatives to vote a certain way, they lose the credibility to run a more moderate platform once they get elevated to the big races.

      The solution is to draw your statewide candidates (Gov, LtGov, AG, US Senate) through a primary rather than a convention, of course, but also to resist the temptation to run outdated name candidates like Allen or Gilmore, pols whose relevance had long since been extinguished.

      I don’t think we’re doomed to 2-3 decades of Democrat control of statewide seats like Mr Dalton says, below… the right candidate can go a long way in a state that’s far closer to 50/50 that some recent elections would have you believe. I just want to see some GOP candidates a little easier to vote for than George “Macaca” Allen, Jim “No Car Tax” Gilmore, and Ken “The State Flag is Indecent!” Cuccinelli.

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        re: ” I just want to see some GOP candidates a little easier to vote for than George “Macaca” Allen, Jim “No Car Tax” Gilmore, and Ken “The State Flag is Indecent!” Cuccinelli.”

        given the current trajectory of the GOP – I think you’re about to become a man without a party…

        …..

      2. Ghost of Ted Dalton Avatar
        Ghost of Ted Dalton

        Perhaps you are correct. I think a McDonnell-Bolling type could win a statewide election. However, at the 2013 GOP Convention, they were persona non grata.

        Personally, I think Rob Wittman could win a statewide election as a Republican. But I don’t think he could get the nomination. I’ve made it clear that I’d vote for Jim Bacon for Governor. But I don’t think a Cuccinelli-Brat GOP is going to consider men like that who aren’t 100% ideologues.

        I think the best summation comes from a woman I grew up with in the West End. She is now a mother who lives in the extended West End. She has gone from 100% GOP to about 80% Dem. She emailed me today about the Cantor-Brat election. As she wrote….I can’t support candidates or a party whose solution to school shootings is to automatically say, “We can talk about everything BUT guns.” Her words, not mine.

        But today’s GOP has made 100% opposition to ANY talk of the mildest gun control an absolute disqualifier.

        Gun control is just one of many issues in which the RPV of 2014 will not tolerate apostasy.

  10. Ghost of Ted Dalton Avatar
    Ghost of Ted Dalton

    I think Peter nails it. This goes very deep. Last night, “Old Richmond” died. The Bliley-RTD-CCVA-Fortune500-Phillip Morris-anti-integration coalition collapsed. Bliley Republicanism has dominated the area since integration of the school system. Using a combination of white resentment and big money, the old Bliley coalition had a long run. But last night, it gasped out of existence.

    This is really like watching the Byrd Machine’s last days in the 60s for those who can remember.

    There are a few state legislators left in the Richmond area who were beneficiaries of that Bliley coalition of white resentment and Chamber of Commercism. But, just like we saw the Byrd folks picked off one-by-one through retirements or electoral losses in the 60s and 70s, you will see that brand of Bliley Republicanism die in the next decade for good.

    The GOP of 2014 is the Libertarian Party, for good or bad.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: ” The GOP of 2014 is the Libertarian Party, for good or bad.”

      that’s another one of those words that means a lot of things and in the GOP although they love to wear the hat with that name on it – 99% are no more a libertarian than a sows ear is a silk purse!

      the word “libertarian” is what they use when they want to destroy a particular govt program – while at the same time they want to pour even more money into favored govt programs, or force women to follow certain religious beliefs in decisions about their body, or force kids in school to listen to religious dogma that is not in their home and other assorted BS cloaked with words like “freedom” and “liberty”.

      barf.

  11. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    interesting “heat” map from VPAP showing results on a precinct basis:

    http://www.vpap.org/?display=map&race=C7

  12. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    Maybe not all bad.. folks are now wringing their hands that a potential
    compromise on transportation funding (from general revenues) will
    now fail.. and the Federal Transportation Trust fund will dry up in August.

    Brat claims to be a Libertarian type – so I would expect him to support letting the transportation trust fund go belly up and support more tolling…

    😉

  13. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    checking the new system

Leave a Reply

Read More