Categorized | Featured, News, Opinion

Discussion: George Allen’s Record Examined in Detail

Last week, I declared George Allen the de facto winner of the Republican Primary for US Senate by virtue of the fact that the TEA Party has failed to coalesce behind a single candidate. As I stated in that article, this was not a reflection on the four Republican opponents vying for the job along with Allen. It was simply confronting reality and doing the math. The only possible path to victory for an alternative candidate to defeat Allen in the Republican Primary was for one of them to convince the others that only a single challenger could possibly muster sufficient votes to overcome the popularity of George Allen and win – in a Primary. And even that is a long shot. And this is not something that I made up, every single candidate is well aware of this internally. And as endorsements from TEA Party activists begin to accumulate for Allen, it is obvious that many realize the window of opportunity has closed, and the reality is that we need to defeat Tim Kaine.

But the four opponents have all raised serious and valid concerns over George Allen’s record as a Virginia State Legislator, as Virginia’s Governor and as a former US Senator from Virginia. And these all merit examination and discussion.

A friend with the Mechanicsville TEA Party has forwarded a bullet list of questions and concerns over Allen’s record. This is a fairly comprehensive list of complaintsthat have become the talking points of most of the opponents to Allen. My TEA Party friend’s email read “Hey Tom,  Can you plz offer you opinion/analysis on these items that were sent to me by a friend?  I would greatly appreciate it.  Thx.

Now I recognize that this list is word for word from an email from the Virginia TEA Party Patriots Federation who do not support George Allen. Allen’s opponents have combed through his record and looked at every vote that he has cast, and through the prism of 20/20 hindsight tempered with the New Conservative Revolution tint, using these votes to their advantage. That is exactly what they are supposed to do. There is nothing sinister or unfair here. This is politics. When one candidate has a record, and the rest do not, a voting record becomes a powerful weapon against an incumbent on, in this case, a returnee.

But we learned from Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign that it is easy to use an opponent’s record against him if you have none – or voted present on everything – but it is not enough be good at finding faults with your opponent if you should win. And sometimes those things you used as a weapon turn out to be tools for good when you take office yourself.

And sometimes the “spin” that comes with these tactics do not show an accurate picture, especially if the mindset of the voters has changed.

And changed it has! And organizations like the VTPP are to thank, in large part, for framing the discussion, educating voters and getting people up off their sofas and standing up for what the silent majority believes in. The TEA Party is directly responsible for the changes in BOTH the Republican and Democratic Party’s. The country is moving to the right because of this effort. And this included politicians. What passed for conventional logic a few years ago is now almost blasphemy. People actually carry the Constitution around in their pockets.

I have changed my views and so have most of my friends. And I believe it is reasonable to believe that politicians can change. I am more concerned with what they are saying now than what they did or said a few years (or decades) ago. There are exceptions. John McCain comes to mind. He is a “say anything to get elected” Republican. He got the memo and used it right up until he won the last election. Then he promptly tossed it in the shredder. But he has a history of that. He is known for saying one thing to get elected and quite another when he wins.

We have no proof that George Allen is this type of person. From my examination, he does what he says. And more importantly, he follows the will of the voters. For me, what he is saying now is what counts. I am not finding a lot of difference between his positions and that of the other candidates on the issues. Allen has a record. And I am finding a great deal of consistency between what he promised to do and what he actually did. In hindsight, I don’t like some of the things he supported, but he has also changed his views. But I didn’t have a problem with them at the time, and I never once called his office to complain.

Here is the list of concerns as I received them in the email, on which I shall opine in order:

  • George Allen voted 4 times to raise the debt ceiling, increasing it by 50% and adding $3.1 Trillion to the national debt.
  • Virginia General Fund spending increased by 45.6% while George Allen was Governor.
  • While in the U.S. Senate, George Allen voted for the costly No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Now he opposes them.
  • George Allen also flip-flopped on ethanol, sugar and farm subsidies. After all this flip-flopping, George Allen now agrees with the Tea Party. …Coincidence??
  • George Allen owns a Lobbying firm and thinks it is okay for Lobbyists to give gifts to Congress and he wants no transparency which might expose bribes to Congress. But then…maybe he has changed his mind on this, too.
  • George Allen thinks tax subsidies are okay for companies that move jobs overseas.
  • Allen never met an earmark he didn’t like. He voted for 40,000 ear marks, including the Iowa indoor rain forest and is on record for multiple flip-flops on the bridge to nowhere.
  • George Allen supports UN Agenda 21, a plan for global governance which destroys property rights. He sponsored national heritage area, legislation giving environmentalist and a handful of wealth landowner’s extraordinary use over private landowners.
  • George Allen took money from Freddie Mac concurrent to his refusing to push for government sponsored enterprise (GSE) reform.
  • George Allen voted for Clinton-Feinstein gun ban.
  • George Allen voted to federalize the TSA.


George Allen voted 4 times to raise the debt ceiling, increasing it by 50% and adding $3.1 Trillion to the national debt.


The figure should be $3.01 Trillion, a difference of $85 Billion dollars, but we’ll call it close enough. And a staggering figure. When Allen took office, the debt ceiling stood at $5.950 Trillion. In 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2006 Allen voted to increase the debt ceiling to $8.965 Trillion. In 2002, the vote to raise the ceiling by $450 Billion passed 68 to 29. A total of 31 Republicans voted to raise the limit, 15 opposed and 2 did not vote. 36 Democrats voted yes and 14 voted no. This was a bipartisan vote and there was no discussion. The bill passed on June 27, 2002 and was signed by George W. Bush the next day. Nine months earlier, the nation had suffered a terror attack that hit the financial sector hard and we were at war. Those who voted Nay on this were prepared to see the government shut down in a time of war and during a national emergency. Sure there was some concern about raising the limit, but shutting down the government at that time would have been worse. Hillary Clinton opposed the increase as did John Corzine and Russ Feingold. (Virginia’s other Senator at the time, John Warner also voted against the increase.)


The Republicans had taken control of the Senate in the 2002 elections. On Christmas Eve, 2002 Treasury sent a warning that we were nearing default and the debt ceiling must be increased. In March, 2003 the US went into Iraq. We were now nearing default, a government shutdown and engaged in two wars. And to make matters worse, the spirit of bipartisanship and “We are all Americans” that began on 9/12/2001 abruptly ended when the Democrats lost control of the Senate. The Democrats were out to undermine President Bush and make things as difficult as possible for him and the Republicans in hopes of regaining power. The radical left wing of the Democratic Party who call themselves “Progressives” took control of the Party and planned their return to power by making Bush a failure. The vote to raise the debt ceiling passed 53 to 44 with 3 Democrats not voting. The vote was strictly along party lines with 2 Democrats voting to raise the ceiling – Breaux (D-La) and Miller (D-Ga) – and only one Republican voting against – Ensign (R-Nv).


This year was almost an instant replay of the 2003 vote. This increase passed 52-44 with the same two Democrats voting Yea with the Republicans and Ensign the lone Republican voting Nay with the Democrats. Independent Jeffords voted with the Dems.


Another instant replay of 2003 and 2004. The increase passed 52-48. All 52 Yea votes were Republicans. Coburn (R-OK) and Endign (R-Nv) were the lone Republicans voting against this increase.

Analysis / Conclusion

The vote in 2002 was the lone exception here. The other three years (2003, 2004 and 2006) were essentially a Democratic attempt to shut down the government and damage President Bush, not a vote between fiscal sanity and continued irresponsible spending. The increase in 2002 passed easily and a no vote from Allen would not have mattered. The other three years, the vote came down to partisan politics. There was no TEA Party calling for reason, there was no cry for cutting spending and not a single demonstration demanding that we hold the line, except from the anti-war left. George Allen followed the will of Virginia voters – the people he represented – who overwhelmingly supported Bush. We have a case of an elected official, George Allen, who voted the way a majority of the people he represented wanted him to vote. Isn’t that what we put him in office to do? Represent the will of the majority of the people in Virginia?

I have a hard time blaming Allen for doing exactly what we asked him to do. I blame myself for not waking up and demanding a stop to this.

But I credit the TEA Party for the national wake-up call. No longer are debt ceiling increases a matter take lightly. We have a serious debt crisis. The old way of thinking are gone. We asked Allen to support President Bush and that included raising the debt ceiling. Our silence was our approval. There is a new mood in the nation and it’s growing. We elect people to cast votes on our behalf. They work for us. We are now asking the next Republican Senator to cut the deficit. Allen agrees. He supports a balanced budget, a line item veto and a free market. He wants to cut spending. We may not like the debt ceiling votes he cast, but he did as he was asked. We are now asking him to cut spending and cut the size of government. Allen agrees. I would have a problem with George Allen if he were traveling around the state promising to increase the debt. He’s not. He is promising to do just the opposite.

And he did not lie to Virginians before. We told him what to do and he did it. Now we are tasking him with different instructions. And he agrees.

This is a great issue for his opponents to use against him, but I am unable to find any evidence that any of these opponents picketed his office or urged anyone to flood his fax, email and phones in 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2006. If they did, please give me a link. Otherwise, I must assume that they were as silent as I was on the issue.

Virginia General Fund spending increased by 45.6% while George Allen was Governor.

When George Allen took over as Governor of Virginia in 1994, the budget he ‘inherited’ was $14.7 Billion. When he left office in 1998, his final budget was $20.7 Billion for the fiscal year starting in July after he left office. That is $6 Billion, or an increase of 40.7%. Still substantial, but over the last 30 years, the budget has grown 470% from nearly $2.7 billion in 1981 to $15.5 billion this year. So, the increase was not out of the normal range as the population of Virginia increased.

But if you look at the spending increases, some of the $6 Billion in additional spending were beyond the Governor’s control. And some were issues that he ran on, such as abolishing parole, which required building a $400 Million prison.

Other mandatory spending increases were for Virginia’s share of mandatory education  costs – nearly $1 Billion, a tax settlement for federal employees who were taxed improperly ($300 Million), Medicare increased costs ($244 Million), $214 million that was mandated to go into the state’s “Rainy Day Fund” and he also left a $260 Million head start to fund the elimination of the Car Tax that his successor, Governor Gilmore promised. He also proposed a tax cut of $2.1 Billion in 1995, but the Democrat controlled General Assembly refused, preferring to spend the extra revenue. So, of the $6 Billion increase in spending, $4.1 Billion was either mandatory or imposed by the Democrats in the General Assembly. The remaining increase, $1.9 Billion is really quite low compared to the last 30 years. And as the population grew, so too did revenue, and without a tax increase. An average $471 Million per year increase with the growth in population requiring more spending to support the increase is not really a bad record. And Allen never said he would spend less. He said he would cut unnecessary and wasteful spending.

Analysis / Conclusion

This is another great statistic for opponents to toss out, but when you look at the facts and figures, there is nothing here that I find disturbing. As population increases, the state must spend more, and it also takes in more.

While in the U.S. Senate, George Allen voted for the costly No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Now he opposes them.

These were both platforms that Republicans ran on. They promised to address the issues of disparity in education between minorities and others, and they promised a prescription drug benefit for Seniors. This was part of the new “Compassionate Conservatism” that George W. Bush embraced, as did the Republican Party. The press convinced voters that Republicans were too harsh, uncaring and not concerned with the elderly or minorities. These were things that Republicans promised to do if elected, and it was one of the main reasons that they won. Again, voters told George Allen they wanted these things, and he voted as he was instructed and as he promised.

I would be concerned if the Allen Campaign were going around saying he is proud of these votes. Call it a flip-flop if you will, but I am glad he now opposes them. Most of us thought that they would be good and “compassionate” programs. But like all things government, we were mistaken in giving the Federal Government more control over health care and education.

No Child Left Behind

This was a platform George Bush ran on. There were far too many inner city schools that were pushing through African-American (and other minorities) kids that graduated functionally illiterate. The schools gave up trying to educate them and simply became babysitters. American kids graduated without knowing the basic skills – Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. Virginia had their own solution, the Standards of Learning (SOL’s) and Allen attempted to amend legislation to exempt Virginia, as we had already addressed the issue. The amendment was defeated. Allen considers this now to be an unwanted and unnecessary federal incursion on education.

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit

The Democrats promised it and the Republicans countered. And when the Republicans won, they delivered. Not what the Democrats wanted, though. Far less. But still another federal program that has cost taxpayers far too much and far more than it was supposed to cost. The fact that Allen opposes it now is a good thing. HE has listened to the us!

George Allen also flip-flopped on ethanol, sugar and farm subsidies. After all this flip-flopping, George Allen now agrees with the Tea Party. …Coincidence??

Ethanol Subsidies

Ethanol subsidies, or the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) was designed to provide incentives for fuel suppliers to blend ethanol with gasoline. Some politicians saw this as a better alternative to forcing more costly requirements onto vehicle manufacturers and a way to limit the power of the EPA. The 2007 Renewable Fuel Standard law requires suppliers to use ethanol. So, since 2007 the ethanol subsidies now provide incentive to follow the law? These subsidies should have gone away in 2007. Anyone that supports them now is either representing a farm state or an idiot. And research shows that Allen was against subsidies prior to a 2006 vote in favor and is now against them once again. Some speculate that this change was because he had ambitions to run for the White House in 2008. So there has been some inconsistency on this for Allen. But he now opposes them.

Sugar and Farm Subsidies

Agricultural subsidies have been around since the Great Depression. It gives the Feds far too much power to interfere in free market and supply and demand. Ironically, some believe that the ethanol subsidies are responsible for the rise in food prices and support farm subsidies as a way to lower food costs increased by ethanol subsidies. That is a perfect example of why the federal government should end all subsidies. They only make things worse. I am happy to know George Allen no longer supports these, and wonder why he supported them in the first place.


George Allen owns a Lobbying firm and thinks it is okay for Lobbyists to give gifts to Congress and he wants no transparency which might expose bribes to Congress. But then…maybe he has changed his mind on this, too.

I suppose this is in reference to George Allen Strategies, LLC which, according to Allen is not a Lobbying Firm. Paul Unger is listed as a Principal, and he is a registered lobbyist. I have no idea if this is truly a lobbying firm, but Lobbying is a legal activity. As to the other charges in this statement, I feel fairly certain that Allen would not support bribery and “wants no transparency” is hyperbole, nothing more.

George Allen thinks tax subsidies are okay for companies that move jobs overseas

These questions seem to be moving into unsubstantiated accusation territory now. If there is a company that is no longer located in the United States that is receiving tax subsidies, I am not aware of it. Without specifics, it is impossible to comment on this. I am aware that this is the same type of attack that Liberals and Progressives use to attack Republicans for supporting “Corporate Welfare”. If this is the same type of thinking, what this is about is plain, ordinary tax deductions that every company receives such as deductions for depreciation, or other normal tax deductions. This makes it sound as if Allen believes companies should be rewarded for moving jobs overseas. If a company moves a call center to India to save money and still receives a tax deduction for it’s operations based in the US that every other company is entitled to, how is this a problem? Should we punish a company for moving parts of their company to a more hospitable environment than the US is currently providing? If we do, why would they not move the entire company overseas?


Allen never met an earmark he didn’t like. He voted for 40,000 ear marks, including the Iowa indoor rain forest and is on record for multiple flip-flops on the bridge to nowhere.

Thanks to the TEA Party, earmarks have been exposed as a truly horrific waste of taxpayer money. But that has not always been the case. Often, when a Senator or Congressman was running for re-election, the people demanded to know “what did you do for us?” “Did you bring home the bacon?” And far too often, these earmarks were used as a bribe for a vote. Before the TEA Party began screaming about this practice, that was simply the status quo in Washington. The federal government takes our money and the people expect their Senator to grab as much as they can and send it back home. That was their job. It was expected.

There is no defending this practice and it has become so toxic and unpalatable that only a few still advocate their use. It was rare to find anyone in Washington that eschewed earmarks until they were exposed.

But here is what Allen now says about earmarks:

“The people have spoken. Travelling around Virginia the past few months, one thing is clear to me: Virginians and Americans are tired of wasteful Bridges to Nowhere, orchid gardens in Pittsburgh, and indoor rainforests in Iowa. These wasteful projects have tainted their view of all earmarks. And, the Republicans should forego earmarks and cut much more spending than just earmarks. I am proud of the leadership that Eric Cantor, Jim DeMint and others showed on this issue.”

George Allen supports UN Agenda 21, a plan for global governance which destroys property rights. He sponsored national heritage area, legislation giving environmentalist and a handful of wealth landowner’s extraordinary use over private landowners

This quote came from 2006 – 2007 when the bill was making it’s way through Washington. Some expressed understandable concerns about the project now called “Journey Through Hallowed Grounds”. There was much crying and gnashing of teeth over this one. And if you Google this, you find that there are lots of panicked predictions and dire prophecies that this was going to so restrict Personal Property Rights that the Feds would own everything. And to be sure, the land grabbers use pretty phrases and words to fool us. But a strange thing happens when you look at the fear before the project and the actuality of what this ended up doing. There are restrictions. Billboards are not allowed. Other than that, it has actually preserved a large swath of history that people can enjoy, and property owners along the route have been pleased. What was predictions of horrors turned to some really great videos, pictures and accounts of fishing trips, sightseeing, and a connection to our past – Civil War and all.

Look, when someone wants to pave over a Civil War battlefield, residents and history buffs get up in arms. Wal-Mart’s Property Rights be damned! Not one trench for progress! My research on this has me planing a trip. Perhaps in the Spring to the “Journey Through Hallowed Ground”.

And Agenda 21? This has nothing at all to do with that! It sends up the red flags, that’s for sure. But this is an old issue that turned out to be a false alarm. The old “panic” died and some want to revive this false alarm. Check it out for yourself. I plan to. Click here for info.

George Allen took money from Freddie Mac concurrent to his refusing to push for government sponsored enterprise (GSE) reform.

Freddie Mac is one of Virginia’s largest employers and the fact that they gave money to Allen is not remarkable. He was running for re-election and was raising money, and one of the topemployers in the state gave him money, as they did to quite a few. An email was sent out urging members of a lobbying group to have their friends and constituents (not the Lobbyists themselves) call Senators from their home states telling them that Freddie Mac should receive additional legislative scrutiny, but that the proposed bill would hamper home buyers in their home state. The next day, a letter targeted 17 Republicans urging them to support a vote on the regulatory bill to address Freddie Mac. 9 of the Senators did not sign it, including George Allen. I would suspect that the prospect of a double whammy on Virginia – the loss of Home Loans and the potential issue of a major Virginia employer possibly losing jobs for Virginian’s had a lot to do with the decision. Allen was officially “undecided”. And he lost the 2006 election before actually making a decision. So, the statement says, essentially, that Allen got a donation from Freddie Mac and failed to actively push for legislation to regulate them. It doesn’t say he opposed the legislation. He simply did not take a position one way or the other on a bill that never came up for a vote.

I think this one is a stretch. To go after Allen for something he voted for or against is one thing. But to use the fact that he did not actively push for legislation that never hit the floor as an issue is not valid, in my opinion.

I know where he stands now. But then everyone has the same opinion these days.

George Allen voted for Clinton-Feinstein gun ban.

This Law was enacted in 1994, the year Allen became Governor of Virginia. The bill had a sunset provision, meaning it would end in 2004, 10 years later.

From Wiki:

On March 2, 2004, with the ‘sunset’ of the ban on the horizon, assault weapon ban supporter Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) attached a ten-year extension to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban to the Senate’s Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. With the Feinstein amendment, the bill was voted down 8-90.

Allen voted Nay. Click here for the vote.


George Allen voted to federalize the TSA.

Yep. He sure did. Senate Bill 1447 passed exactly 30 days after the terrorist attacks on 10/11/2001. Had Allen cast a Nay vote on this, the vote would have been 99-1. But as it turned out, there were 100 Senators who voted for this bill. It was closer in the House as only 410 members voted for it and 9 opposed it.

Really? Does it make sense to anyone to go after a Senator on a unanimous vote?



This is even worse than I thought before I looked into it. These are lies, distortions and half-truths. To be honest, I thought that must be some merit to some of these “charges”. But anyone repeating this list is guilty of deception. This is nothing short of a smear tactic. Did anyone even bother to look at the facts surrounding some of these votes before they copied and pasted them in emails and on websites? Is there no honest discourse in Virginia politics anymore?

This is the type of crap we have become accustomed to from the Progressive Democrats. But this list was shamefully compiled by people who call themselves Conservatives. There is no honesty here. There is nothing but spin and outright deceptive statements.

I honestly thought that George Allen would have some explaining to do on at least some of this list.

This is the biggest bunch of malarkey I have ever seen between people who are supposed to be on the same side in this fight. Winning is one thing, but this is simply disgusting and shameful. And, frankly, embarrassing.

Feel free to leave a comment and defend this.


About Tom White

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog. Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

26 Responses to “Discussion: George Allen’s Record Examined in Detail”

  1. Chip Tarbutton says:

    I am a tea party activist and not a member of the VTPP. You have done a good job of deconstucting these items. Some of them are strawmen, like the Agenda 21 charge. I am helping to leadi the charge in Roanoke against A21 and ICLEI. That is a big stretch. This is one of the many reasons I can't support Jamie Radkte.____That being said, I am not supporting Allen. As your article rightly points out, Allen is just the same kind of wishy washy quasi conservative political hack that have driven the GOP into the ditch. Your argument seems to be, well all the other kids were doing it too, so it is OK. Plus he has changed his mind now and admitted he was wrong.____The fact that Allen was part of the crowd on No Child Left Behind, Medicaid Part D, and reckless spending does not absolve him from the responsibility for the disasters that have befallen us in large part due to these votes. ____What makes you so certain he won't cave again, when the political winds blow in a different direction? Isn't that, based on his track record, the likeliest outcome if he wins?____

    • Tom White says:

      Chip, you are correct. I am not defending Allen on these votes, just trying to put them into context so voters can understand the issues and times and get a clear feeling for what these votes were about. The part that bothers me most is the persons spreading these statements are being totally inaccurate. To say, in the same email, that Allen voted to federalize the TSA, thereby adding government regulation to security, previously done by the airlines is true. As Conservatives, we see over regulation and government intervention as problematic. But the same email criticizes Allen for NOT regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On Freddie and Fannie, Allen was concerned about more regulation. Some said this bill went too far, and there were better options.

      And the TSA vote was 100 – 0.

      I believe that allowing the federal government to take over airport security has been a disaster. Mostly because of who is running it now. But on October 11, 2001, the day the vote was taken, my job depended on my spending a lot of time flying and the best option then was to let the feds do it professionally instead of the rag-tag system we had in place before, where Airlines were not willing to spend more than they absolutely had to on security. And I supported the TSA move. And I now hate the idea.

      I think that an honest voter will consider times to determine that a politician is not for them. With everyone at home telling Allen to vote yea on the TSA bill – and it was unanimous, I'm not sure that doing what the majority of the people he represented wanted is so wrong. And I have changed my views on a lot of these things. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect that others, even politicians, have not also come 180 degrees.

      I believe that if we look at these votes and issues on which Allen is being criticized in light of the time they were being considered that we will have the best measure of the man. Out of context, these things are of little use to me.

      And there are some that think a candidate should do what he thinks best no matter what the people he represents want.

      I want a representative that listens to the people he represents. On most of these issues, I agreed with how Allen voted at the time. I no longer do. Some are real stinkers.

      Like I say, this is not a defense of Allen or his record. I am just trying to put the votes in proper perspective. And some will find that the votes were still bad. But their decision will be based on the true picture, not hype and spin and out of context stink bombs. Then their decision will be complete.

      And please keep up the ICLEI – Agenda 21 fight. I believe that this is far more important than anything else we are involved in here, including the 2012 elections. If this is implemented completely, we are all doomed!

  2. Chip Tarbutton says:

    EW Jackson is the only real choice for Senate. He has the passionmm, the knowledge and the rhetorical skills to beat Kaine. Allen showed in the last debate that he can't stand up to Kaine. Kaine kicked his teeth in (figuratively speaking) last week. We need flesh blood in DC and Jackson is the man.

    • Tom White says:

      And Bishop Jackson is a really great candidate and a very articulate speaker. I like him a lot. My only real concern with him, and most of the other challengers to Allen is financial. Between June 13th and November, Kaine will be putting millions of dollars into TV, radio, internet, snail mail and blog advertising. Jackson needs to show he can match Kaine in the media wars to come. If he can't, Kaine wins. Virginia and the country needs to keep that from happening.

  3. Chip says:

    I am confident Jackson's campaign will pick up some momentum in the next few weeks. I do think your analysis is as fair an analysis of Allen's record available on line. The issue comes down to whether we should give pre-Tea Party GOP decisions a pass because they may not have known better. I think that is exactly the wrong tact to take, but I may turn out to be in the minority. Time will tell. While I don't agree with your overall analysis I appreciate your even handed treatment of Allen's career.

  4. Chip says:

    Your point about this being a series of half truths is certainly valid on a bunch of these items though. Tea Party groups would do well in vetting information before jumping behind something like this…..not to mention the Radkte Campaign. While I have no love for Allen, there is plenty of legit stuff to beat him up for without making stuff up. You know I am active in the Agenda 21 fight and I can't justify beating him up over the batlefield bill. Allen did more harm on A21 by giving more power to regional planning commissions in 95. However, I can't find anything in that decision that ties that decision back to A21. The regional commisions has morphed into a A21 support mechanism, but as convenient as it would be be for an Allen-hater like me to beat that drum….its just not fair. The biggest critiscim I could make is that it shows his willingness to create government solutions to problems that inevitably go wrong. Which is why I want fresh blood in DC. I also found in interesting that they beat up Allen for having a liobby firm. Jamie owns a lobbying firm too…The hypocrisy or ignorance of these folks is stunning.

  5. Kade Peckham says:

    Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Great.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!