Wednesday, June 6, 2007

24th District "In Case of Emergency" Candidate

I was reading with curiosity Chris Graham's interview with David Cox, an Episcopal minister from Lexington, on the New Dominion today. Chris asked some great questions, and with so many subtexts, I am not sure where to begin. However, Cox may have revealed much more than he intended to.

The first inclination of where the Democrats are at came with this statement by Cox (potential Democrat nominee for the 24th Senate district--more on that in a bit). Cox said, "What makes this race attractive in the 24th Senatorial District is the fact that we may have a clean slate - it may be an open seat."

On first blush this seems innocuous enough; the Dems have appropriately found someone to run for their ticket. However, Cox voiced speculation that Emmett Hanger may lose--now this in and of itself is phenomenal. In the history of VA politics (correct me if I'm wrong), there have only been three incumbents unseated since Reconstruction in the General Assembly. Basically folks, it never happens. Hanger v Sayre is, as SWAC Girl alluded to, David v. Goliath. Yet, the Dems went ahead and nominated someone because even they realize that the unprecedented may happen.

However, what Cox says next interests me even more. Graham asks the follow-up question regarding what happens based on the outcome of the Republican primary. Cox's response is only thinly veiled when he says, "It’s up to the Republicans to determine what they do - and Democrats are going to respond appropriately."

The Democrats will respond appropriately? What exactly does that mean? Have they nominated Cox as the "in case of emergency candidate"? Meaning, if their native son Hanger loses, they then have a decent alternative?

There should be no "appropriate response". The bottom line, the Democrat candidate should be spending every moment of every day ensuring that he fully intends to be a contender in this race.

This is getting curiouser and curiouser. Get out the popcorn and soda, June 12th is proving to be quite a show!

X-Posted at In-Politically Correct


Blogger James Atticus Bowden said...

The distinction is unseated incumbents in a primary.

June 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM  
Blogger Teddy Roosevelt said...

"This is getting curiouser and curiouser"

Is that kind of like Dumb and Dumberer? I guess I'm just curiouser.

June 7, 2007 at 12:19 AM  
Blogger Teddy Roosevelt said...

The Democrats smell a divided and weakened Republican party. Some of you "party leaders" have lost touch. Mark Werner was an extremely popular governor, yet Sayre's number one campaign issue revolves around bashing Werner's greatest accomplishment. And then you wonder why the Democrats might be salivating! If Scott Sayre wins the primary, the Democrats have an excellent chance of taking the seat. Sayre runs too far to one extreme and Sime will take many of the anti-tax votes. A Sayre victory in the primary would be a dream for Democrats in the general election. I have a hard time believing you guys can't see that.

June 7, 2007 at 12:25 AM  
Blogger Spank That Donkey said...

TR stands for higher taxes..

That means you are a Democrat.. you offer nothing in the way of reducing spending, nor of approaching govt. in any other way than business as usual...

No solutions, just blind testament to the go-along-to-get-along crowd.

Wow, what leadership.

June 7, 2007 at 12:41 AM  
Blogger Teddy Roosevelt said...


I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat. I don't go along with any group.

I vote for the person.

June 7, 2007 at 12:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home