What Others Have to Say About Virginia’s Gubernatorial Contest

John Nichols, The Nation:

The Republican National Committee staff swallowed hard, wiped away a tear and got to work on trying to come up with a reason why Virginians should not elect state Senator Creigh Deeds as their next governor . . . .

The Deeds win was bad, bad news for a Grand Old Party that has not been having a grand time at the polls in recent election cycles. Deeds, a moderate Democrat with a rural base and more than 15 years experience in the state legislature, has a track record as a reformer that will position him as a strong contender in November . . . .

[T]here can be no question that for the Virginia (and national) Democrats -- even those Democrats who don't know Deeds all that well, or who don't agree with him on all the issues -- the fact that they won't have to spend this election season trying to make excuses for Terry McAuliffe can only be read as good news. Stuart Rothenberg, political analyst:

One national Republican strategist has a simple formula in explaining recent Virginia elections, and it doesn't seem far off the mark: The guy who looks extreme or stupid and is the focal point of the race loses.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Mary Sue Terry lost the 1993 election to Republican George Allen because he defined her as too liberal. The same thing happened four years later, in 1997, when Jim Gilmore (R) defeated Northern Virginia car dealer Don Beyer (D).

On the other hand, now-Sen. Jim Webb (D) narrowly defeated Allen in the 2006 Senate race because Allen's "macaca" remark (and his subsequent explanation of it) made him look intolerant and inept. Democrats used 2005 GOP gubernatorial nominee Jerry Kilgore's accent to paint him as a none-too-bright hick. And Republican Bill Bolling won the state's No. 2 office in 2005 by painting his Democratic opponent, former Rep. Leslie Byrne from Northern Virginia, as a kooky liberal.

Deeds' rural roots and momentum make him a tough adversary for Republicans. He won't be as easily defined (or demonized) as a liberal as Moran or McAuliffe would have been. Tony Lee, on Robert Holsworth's blog virginiatomorrow:

Deeds's winning the primary may have been the best thing to happen to McDonnell and Virginia Republicans . . . .

Had McAuliffe or Moran won the nomination, Republicans, thirsting for a revival, may have gone overboard in attacking the Democratic candidate. In essence, they may have made the same mistake Moran made in the primaries -- making the race about the opponent instead of about McDonnell. It would have been fun and exciting, but Virginia's independent voters may have been turned off . . . .

With Deeds on the top of the ticket, the election will be less circus-like and more focused on meat and potatoes issues unless Democrats attempt to spuriously tie McDonnell to figures like George W. Bush. This helps McDonnell.

. . . [N]obody can deny that McDonnell is developing a nice portfolio of forward-looking policies on issues affecting the Commonwealth . . . .

In short, Deeds vs. McDonnell seems to be an election that will be decided more on policies rather than personalities. In the early stages, McDonnell seems to have the edge and can most aptly be labeled as the man with the plan. Jim Geraghty, National Review Online:

McDonnell has led every poll taken in 2009 that puts him in a head-to-head matchup with Deeds. McDonnell's favorable rating has been called "Obama-esque." He begins the general election way ahead in fundraising, and has a nearly 10-to-1 advantage in cash on hand . . . .

McDonnell's backers say they know how to beat Deeds in key counties from the two men's 2005 showdown in the attorney general's race, where McDonnell ran well ahead of the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore.

Beyond that, sources close to McDonnell note that Deeds is not the same candidate as when he ran that 2005 race, having shifted considerably on some key issues . . . .[Virginia's marriage] amendment was ratified by 57 percent of the voters, and Deeds supported it. As a gubernatorial candidate in a Democratic primary, Deeds now says that vote was "a mistake."

As a legislator, Creigh Deeds received an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association . . . .Now Deeds is pledging to close "the gun show loophole," saying the Virginia Tech shootings changed his mind . . . .

As a state legislator, Deeds voted for a partial-birth-abortion ban earlier in his career; he now opposes it. Former Democratic governor Doug Wilder said during the primary that he was disappointed with Deeds's reversals, and none-too-subtly asked: "What Creigh is saying now is, 'I've changed my philosophy.' Suppose we had elected you before -- would you have changed?"