Winners and Losers: Gilmore, Warner, Frederick, Hillary, McCain

Compiled by Chris Graham
[email protected]

TELL US MORE ABOUT YOU, JIMMY: More trash from Gilmore

Got another note from the Jim Gilmore campaign with more trash on how Mark Warner is a bad guy. Today it’s something he said to the Virginia AFL-CIO about his support of legislation that would put Virginia’s right-to-work status in jeopardy.

First question – who outside of a business elitist cares one way or the other if employers can strike down unions and fire their employees at will? Does that make my life better? I dunno.

Second question – is Jim Gilmore basing his candidacy entirely on the idea that Mark Warner is a bad guy? I ask that because I’m struggling with what Gilmore would otherwise do to represent us in the U.S. Senate, other than try to get Congress to somehow enact car-tax relief.

Tell us something about you, Jimmy. It’s going to be hard for us to elect you without something else to go on.

 

SPEAKING OF … More nonsense from Jeffrey Frederick

“Mark Warner’s claim that he is willing to work across the aisle is only true if there are liberals on both sides. When he did work with Republicans, it was only to feed them false revenue projections and cooked books to trick some of them into voting for a tax hike.”

Thanks, Jeff, for bringing inanity to our coverage of Mark Warner’s quasi-keynote address to the Democratic National Convention last night.

Fact Check: The Republican-majority State Senate wanted a tax deal four times bigger than the one that Warner proposed in ’04. Which is to say, he brought the Republicans back into line. And don’t forget, your House of Delegates voted for the tax increase, too.

You want to point at the blood in the water, well, some of it was on your hands, too.

 

FOX NEWS FAIR AND PARTIAL: Were they watching the same speech we were?

I flipped the clicker to watch some noise from Fox after the Hillary speech, and then asked myself aloud …

Why did they credential these jokers?

Bill Kristol was yammering on and on and on about how Hillary Clinton had only mentioned Barack Obama’s name twice. (I counted 12 mentions. Two, 12, what’s the difference, right?)

The rest of the cast of characters harrumphed in similar fashion, except for Chris Wallace, who said from the convention floor that he thought the speech had been well-received, earning a rebuke from Brit Hume that he then challenged on air, making me worry that we’re not going to be seeing much more of Chris Wallace after, say, the end of the week.

This decided things for me. I was going to play fair during next week’s RNC, but in the interest of fairness and balance, well, let’s just say that John McCain’s acceptance speech left a lot to be desired, even if he’s a week away from delivering it.