A Victory In The 54th
While Shaun Kenney came up short against Bobby Orrock in the 54th (55%-45% final), it wasn’t a loss. That Shaun was able to pull in 45% of the vote against a 16 year incumbant that outspent him 5 to 1 says something.
What sunk this race for Shaun were factors outside of his control: the 11th hour falsely claimed Allen endorsement by Orrock and Democrat crossover.
A Thursday mailer last week by Orrock claimed the endorsement of Senator Allen which was not the case. This claim was based off of Allen’s appearance at a fundraiser. The Allen camp moved to deny an endorsement and Orrock apologized with a quarter page ad in Tuesday’s Free Lance Star, but the damage was done. An interesting role reversal when you look at the 2003 Caroline County Board of Supervisors race where Orrock denied he had endorsed a candidate after showing up at one of their fundraisers.
And Democrat crossover was HUGE. The VEA had people at the polls handing out literature. Teachers walked by commenting on how they’d never voted Republican before and would probably be in trouble if others found out. The Free Lance Star even cites a poll worker’s observation:
At the Smith Station precinct in Spotsylvania, poll chief Sharon Deane said a few people had admitted they usually voted Democratic, but had picked up Republican ballots because they wanted to vote for Orrock.But despite all of that, despite the “endorsement” and the crossover and the huge difference in finances, Shaun was still able to pull 45% of the vote.“One said, ‘God forgive me,’” for voting for a Republican,” Deane said.
Conservative voters spoke loud and clear yesterday, and hopefully Orrock will listen.
“In two years, if we don’t get the voting record that we believe reflects the values of the 54th district,” [Kenney] said, “we will be here again.”It was a good, hard fought race. There are always things you can look back on and say “we should have done that”. But in the end, Shaun Kenney ran a damn good campaign and if folks played by the rules, we’d have some different results today.
June 15th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
Well said. I’m sorry i couldn’t be there to support him. I left you a note in your LiveJournal comments area, hopefully you’ll get a chance to check that out.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:43 am
Not to pound the same drum over and over, but I see you left out the FLS’s Tuesday editorial. Maybe the reasons listed there sunk his campaign, not just the Allen endorsement (which IMO may have tarnished Orrock’s rep more in the end) and crossover.
Shaun had legitimate issues to go after Orrock with (mainly the tax hike), but went low with the mud and tried to distort Orrock’s casino trip and vote on the insurance bill into campaign issues. That’s why I pounded on him so much: he maligned the truth and he tried to use homophobia to garner Christian conservative votes.
You might want to check your math… according to VPAP’s website, I see that Orrock spent $128,498 as of 6/1 and Shaun spent $44,246. That’s 3:1… Total raised is more like 5:1… And I can’t find the last minute contributions/expenditures on there so you may very well be right.
Anyways, it’s been fun… I just wanted to point out some stuff you forgot. See you guys next time.
June 16th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Actually, the Tuesday editorial had little to no impact on the results, just like Orrock’s quarter page ad retracting the endorsement. Both came too late to have any real impact.
But what Shaun did was merely point out the facts and the record, it was Bobby’s responsibility to explain himself to his constituents and it was up to them to decide if his explanations held up.
Campaigns like this are necessary if a democracy is to work. All Shaun did was point out Bobby’s voting record, bring a lot of issues to the attention of the public, and put Bobby on the spot for some bad decisions. There were no distortions, they were accurate representations of what has happened over the last few years of Bobby’s tenure in the House of Delegates.
It’s not mud if it’s true.
And what his supporters don’t see (and it common on all sides) is that false accusations of mudslinging IS mudslinging. The negative campaigning of accusing your opponent of being negative is not effective, especially if instead of explaing your votes you try and change the argument or attack your opponent by saying they weren’t there or have no idea what they’re talking about. The incumbant has a responsibility to explain themselves, not dodge it, and a lot of time’s that’s what Bobby did.
Democrat crossover won this race, hands down. The VEA making phone calls over the weekend to every teacher/bus driver/janitor in the district telling them that if they liked their jobs that they NEEDED to vote for Bobby turned this election.
June 16th, 2005 at 11:15 am
Jason, I didn’t state that Tuesday’s editorial had impact on the race… it merely summarized legitimate reasons why Shaun lost in addition to the reasons you stated in your original post.
However, I’m not responding to your arguments because you twisted (or “distorted”) my premise to justify ignoring the points brought up by the editorial.
By discarding my original argument, you evaded the editorial’s strong words: “Two blows by the Kenney camp against Del. Bobby Orrock are flagrant fouls, worthy of rebuke.” and “The only gaming going on here is the dirty dealing of the Kenney crowd.“
I’ll repeat myself: If Shaun stuck to the basics which you stated and fought Bobby Orrock on even ground (tax-hikes, pro-life issues), then I would accept your original argument for why he lost. The fact remains that if Shaun played fair there would have been no need to write the editorial. Heck, I might even accept the crossover as having a large impact despite any proving quantification.
I responded to your original argument… why did you discard mine?
June 16th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Your argument was not discarded, I just went beyond what you started with.
But let’s focus on the points.
The Insurance Bill - there was a way to include wording to limit this bill to families and Bobby avoided that. This is a bill that was declared a victory by gay rights groups all over. But it was shrouded in being a “family friendly” bill. Unfortunately, with that it’s a double edged sword. You can attack it as a gay rights bill but then face counter attacks by those saying it’s a family rights bill and vice versa. Shaun focused on the gay rights aspect that he found fault with and even pointed out where it could have been limited so it would remain family friendly without eroding traditional values.
Casino - Did the trip occur or not? Perhaps this was a stretch, but having not personally seen the piece, all I have to go on is what folks are saying about it and I’ve heard both sides, many are upset that the trip happened, others are upset that Shaun would go “that low”. But, I’m sorry, there are plenty of other places, cheaper places, where politicians can gather to discuss politics. Taxpayer funded trips need to be explained, and saying that questioning it is a low blow does nothing to tell us what the trip was about, what was discussed, and whether Virginia tax payers got any bang for their buck.
The FLS editorial, while coming short of an endorsement, endorsed Bobby. The only thing that kept them from doing so was probably the fact that Bobby was an employee, which the paper failed to address. And nevermind Orrock claiming George Allen’s endorsement when he didn’t have it. And nevermind how he never accurately addressed Shaun’s question on many issues. “You don’t understand” is not an answer.
The Orrock camp successfully twisted valid arguments and questions on votes into being mudslinging. If that’s how they won, kudos to them. But just because they say something is mud or the paper says something is a low blow does not make it so. The big picture shows much more to these issues than Orrock and the FLS want to make, and that’s what Shaun stepped up to challenge.
June 16th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Here’s the problem. (1) Trips: You don’t plead poverty for the state budget, then go on these taxpayer-funded trips to casinos and such. It’s not a low blow; it’s something all taxpayers should be aware of as a continual fleecing of taxpayers, both Democratic and Republican. (2) The insurance bill wasn’t pushed by the Kenney campaign nearly as hard as it could have been. No slick on that, no mailing other than the letters, and the Family Foundation was very keen on reminding Orrock on his bad vote. Homophobia? Many would disagree.
In any event, Wednesday’s article was very favorable. He’s definitely made his presence felt, and is a strong contender for any area GOP race. If not for crossover, he’d have won.
Shaun is a great guy and one that, if you met in person Nathan, I’d like to think you would find more to agree upon than disagree. Just gotta get you to shed that party label!
June 16th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
I don’t see the difference between “went beyond” and “ignored”… I equate “went beyond” with “bypassed”. Semantics… whatever.
Believe me, I didn’t need the editorial to validate my beliefs of the low-blows. As you know I’ve been suspicious of what comes out of Shaun’s mouth since I found out he deleted all of his FredTalk posts. Do I believe Bobby is a saint? No. I come from the school of all politicians aren’t perfect and more often than not you have to vote for the ‘less evil’ candidate.
We can go on forever about the insurance issue and casino trip (Bobby did stay at a cheaper place BTW, and I do agree that as a whole, those trips can be cheaper). I do take exception to the notion that if Shaun didn’t agree with one small facet of the bill or trip, he completely wrote it off (and used a mailer to blast it). The insurance bill will benefit tons of families and it’s not guaranteed that gays will benefit at all (it’s a business’s choice now, not the government’s, and Shaun’s a self-professed libertarian, isn’t he?). Besides, from what I read, we’re now in line with the rest of the country.
That “all-or-nothing” mentality that Orrock addresses in today’s FLS sums it up. We’re not going to agree whether these were low-blows or not. By taking a small disagreement and turning it into a campaign issue, Shaun readily invited criticism. These two issues seem rather trivial in comparison to the tax increase that VCAP banked on in their support of him. Now, if an entire law were flawed (like he believed the tax-hike to be), that’s something completely different as there’s more substance.
He strayed away from the original reason why VCAP supported him: he implicitly explained why in today’s Bacon’s Rebellion: “We did focus on the tax hike, and no one cared.”
Maybe people didn’t want a politican who couldn’t compromise? One who would prefer not getting anything done or solving real and pressing problems because of a 100% or dump it ideology? Or maybe it was just a simple as Shaun said… no one really cared about the tax increase. Who knows? With only 7% turning out, each side can spin this into a victory.
As an aside, I find it ironic that Bobby Orrock is an employee of the FLS only because he’s a Southern Baptist with a religious radio show.
June 16th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Anon,
Sorry, I got interuppted while writing the post and didn’t refresh the blog before hitting publish.
The party label doesn’t stop me. I grew up Republican and agree with many party principles. My blog has more.
As for meeting politicians personally, I’m sure you can say that about 98% of them. Whether they are nice folks doesn’t matter when they’re voting on issues in Richmond.
June 16th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Sounds more like you have a chip on your shoulder to me. The only time you get hits on your blog is when you criticize Shaun, and most of the comments are critical of your position.
There’s a reason for that. You should ease off the stick. I’ve read the FredTalk posters. GOOD LORD! You really want to take their word for anything?!
You’re a smart guy, but you’re becoming guilty of the very thing you seem to rage against — pesky “moral contradictions” work both ways.
Just a friendly thought. I’ll let Shaun’s brother handle the rest.
June 16th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
and since we’re in the forgivable habit of double commenting, you once again only quoted the parts of Shaun’s commentary you disagreed with.
Solutions not mantras, and you still find something to go after him with. I don’t get you. You claim to demand moral consistency, yet when you get it, you keep twisting your knife.
That makes you either an attention whore (I hope not) or a hypocrite (sadly, and probably more likely the case).
Not trying to be critical, but you should really sit back and rethink this whole business. You’re embarassing yourself. Please stop - I think you’re better than this.
June 16th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
The chip on my shoulder is that I can’t trust Shaun. This all started with him deleting all 8,688 of his posts from FredTalk. It continued when he lied to me about them.
I don’t care a lick about site traffic volume. (Seeing how people get to my blog is more interesting). I may very well be an attention whore or hypocrite if you accept the premise that you can trust what Shaun says.
I cannot, thus I’ve questioned every word attributed to him. I may be a noisy and embarrasing voice, but the facts remain that he lied to me, and in my book, that’s not cool.
June 16th, 2005 at 7:58 pm
As far as I know, the FredTalk policy was to delete everything when someone unsubscribed and Shaun was the last person included in that mass deletion. Others left before him and there was no to do about the deletion of their posts. If Shaun “asked”, maybe it was just a “Hey, I’ve unsubbed, don’t the posts go then?” But he’s a smart guy and knows that most of his posts are still available somewhere, so I seriously doubt it was a purposeful move to cover anything. But you still take what FUG tells ya and treat it as Gospel. That’s insane. You question Shaun but not them?
June 16th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
You may not agree with what I say, but I do my best to speak with facts. If you don’t agree with them, show me more.
This was all detailed out a couple of months ago in my blog, but for those just jumping in, here’s a summary:
Fact: You had to ask FredTalk specifically to delete your posts.
Fact: When most people leave a board, they just stop posting. I have countless posts and screen names throughout the internet of boards I no longer post in. Why not just leave them there?
Fact: He did this 6 weeks before announcing his campaign. (Last post 1:48 am 2/6/02) The timing bothered me and I became suspicious.
Fact: It’s actually quite difficult to dig the posts up, as Google cache is fairly recent and archive.org doesn’t work since the forum is dynamically scripted. Believe me, I’ve tried, and I consider myself fairly internet savvy. It’s very time consuming.
Fact: When I first published my concerns and questions, he told me “When you suspend your account at FredTalk, your posts are deleted. Simple as that. Not much else to add.”
Fact: FredTalk Admins state otherwise. I also signed up for FredTalk and emailed them and asked if I wanted to leave if my posts be deleted. Answer: No. Accounts may be wiped out periodically but posts remained.
Fact: He lied to me. He deceived me. If he did that to me, how could I not question if he was doing that to voters of the 54th? For someone speaking from the angle of moral truth, was this action consistent?
The argument for why he deleted the posts has long since been hashed out and it’s a rather moot point to continue debate on that point. Was it politically smart for him to do that? Most definitely. Did it give us a transparent look into who he is and his character? Ehh… not so much.
Because he lied to me and because he robbed me and others of the opportunity to judge for myself the context and substance of his 2 years worth of debate on FredTalk, I immediately questioned everything that came out of his mouth.
In the words of Shaun Kenney himself, I at least post with my name… Anonymous, who are you? Call me a hypocrite or whatever, but until I’m presented with facts that contradict mine, I stand on the premise that I had every right to be suspicious of his campaign and its published materials because I couldn’t trust him.
June 17th, 2005 at 10:51 am
one thing about the fredtalk posts. i know for a fact that shaun actually gave up the fredtalk for lent. lent starts on ash wednesday, but i think he decided to stop that sunday before, just to start fresh on a new week, if i remember correctly. fredtalk often became very time consuming for him, so it was a good thing to focus on giving up and spend his time more wisely, (like praying), during the penitential season.
June 17th, 2005 at 11:33 am
nathan, didn’t you read what was written above?
Shaun was the last person included in that mass deletion.
Last. As in you can’t do it anymore. So all your complaining is moot.
I smell a “moral contradiction” coming from nathan’s direction. . . . . .
June 17th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Nathan - I’ll reply more thuroughly but I wanted to say that while I tend to agree that Anon’s should pick names so they can be held to some level of accountability, I find that FredTalk is about 80-90% anonymous users who hide from what they do and say. Shaun’s name was attached to every post he made and their removal was because of FredTalk policy at the time of his leaving. It seems it was common FT policy to remove posts if someone left and that stopped RIGHT AFTER Shaun left. Maybe because of the volume, maybe because the Mod’s had a slant, but everything I’ve seen has pointed to that.
June 18th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Is this a form of spin calling a loss a win? *grins* Shaun won Spotsylvania. The most conservative area in a conservative state. We out conservatived Utah in the last two elections. It’s no surprise that he won here. This is his home ground. But he lost in every other district. Saying he won is like declaring Bob Dole president because he carried Kansas (to dig back a ways for an analogy)
I don’t know how much input Shaun had into how his campaign was going to be run but it was a pretty dirty campaign. I like your brother. He’s a nice guy. He’s also pretty extreme in his views and while using homophobia has become a nationwide tactic of the GOP it’s still pretty sad to see. You lose the moral highground in my books when you pander to such things.
But then I’m an admitted liberal so Shaun and I don’t have a lot of common ground to start a dialogue on.