By Lloyd the Idiot


This is the most schizophrenic campaign I’ve ever seen.

On the one hand, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling offers himself as the moderate alternative to Attorney General Ken Cucchinelli in their race for governor, warning against “ideological firebrands” like Cuccinelli who can’t win the governorship

On the other hand, in a recent campaign mailer, he touts his conservative credentials, pointing to his 100% pro-life rating from the Family Foundation and his A+ rating from the NRA.  In fact, he says, “Bill has used his tie breaking vote to defund Planned Parenthood, require additional state regulation of abortion clinics and exclude abortion coverage from federally mandated Health Insurance Exchange.”

His most recent email titled, “What Lessons Can We Learn From The 2012 Campaigns,” is a whopper, mixing those positions in the same message.  Citing losses among Hispanic, women and Asian voters, Bolling argues, “We must do a better job reaching out to the changing face of Virginia, and to the more moderate and independent voters whose support we must have in these campaigns.”  Then, literally in the next sentence, he says, “We must show these voters how our conservative values are right for Virginia and for America, and we must relate these principles to the issues these voters care most about.”


What is it?  Moderate your views to appeal to other voters or beef up the proselytizing of extreme positions?

Obviously, he’s trying to have it both ways — and it’s just not going to work.  Fact is, he’s as conservative as Cuccinelli, and he’ll have to prove that to get the nomination.  Problem is, that position just won’t win the general election.



  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    It won four years ago… The real problem with Bolling is he is not a leader. Despite his protestations to the opposite in his latest newsletter, he’s a follower and that’s what has gotten him to where he is today. On the other hand Cuccinelli has led from the very first time he ran for office. He can and will win the Governorship.

  • Smith says:

    If there is anything that can help Hilary Clinton or Andrew Cuomo win Virginia in 2016, its 3 years of Cooch in the Governors Mansion.

    Like the Board of Supervisors in Loudoun, Cooch is lucky they have this whack off year election cycle in Virginia.

    I think this things goes national if Cooch is nominated.

  • Charles says:

    Lloyd, stop living down to your name. 🙄 7

    Not choosing sides here. But want to point out that the message is that you can have conservative principles, and act on them in a way that persuades others to follow (like Reagan did), or you can act in a way that makes you look like an ideologue and turn off voters.

    Defunding Planned Parenthood is good small-government conservatism. If you actually WANT government to be responsible for providing health care to some people, then give the money to people in the form of vouchers so they can find their own caregivers. Or at least, give the money to groups that actually PROVIDE care, rather than a group like PP which simply funnels the money through to others.

    But really, we need to shrink the scope of government.

    As I said, I don’t know if Bolling is right about which candidate is best able to present the conservative argument in an appealing fashion, although it is certainly clear that Ken is more polarizing than Bolling is (or as the other side would say, Bolling is much more bland and uncharismatic than Ken is).

    I think Bill Bolling would make a fine Governor of our state. But I’ve given up on the pipe dream that competence matters in elections anymore.

  • One word, Charles: abortion.

    You can’t seek to ban abortion clinics and expect to appeal to young women as a moderate alternative

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    One word, Lloyd. Turnout. Cooch can win in an off year. Loudoun proved that over the last cycle. I don’t like either one but that hardly matters for the purposes of this post.

  • That wasn’t the point, Eric. I'[m saying Bolling will not be perceived as a moderate given his position on women’s rights – whether it’s among Republicans at the convention or the broader electorate in the general election.

    Cooch’s chances in the general election (and the likelihood of his selection as the party’s nominee) will be the topic of a separate post.

  • G.stone says:

    KC4Gov. Done. KC wins nomination. KC wins General election. Done.

  • edmundburkenator says:

    G! Are you leading secessionist movement somewhere?

  • BlackOut says:

    lloyd, good article, but you stopped me in the first sentence.

    “This is the most schizophrenic campaign I’ve ever seen.”

    No chance. Absolutely no comparison. Where were you over the last 12 months? If you missed it check into the flips Romney achieved. That’s your most schizophrenic campaign ever.

  • BlackOut says:

    OK, I am now feeling better that Cuccinelli has no chance. The Stoner is backing him. His ilk always go the wrong way.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    “You can’t seek to ban abortion clinics and expect to appeal to young women as a moderate alternative”

    Lloyd, I believe both Ken and Bill have had exactly the same position on abortion and requirements for abortion clinics to operate in VA. So what’s your point on this one?

    The real problem here is the lack of willingness for anyone to really discuss this issue. Regardless of the current position of the SCOTUS on this, the argument has not been clearly made about what abortion is and when human life begins. I think if most women going in for abortions really thought about what was growing inside them and didn’t remain willingly blinded by the left that this was just some “blob of flesh”, they might very well change their thinking on this.

  • Eric the half a troll says:

    RE, are you forgetting the failed Mississippi ballot initiative number 26?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    “I think if most women going in for abortions really thought about what was growing inside them and didn’t remain willingly blinded by the left that this was just some “blob of flesh”, they might very well change their thinking on this.”

    So spend some time and money on educating them to make their CHOICE better.

    Don’t try to codify religious beliefs into law.

  • Ed Myers says:

    An egg and sperm are potential life and every month a woman and a man withhold from intercourse sex they kill the potential life that could have been. That egg that is menstruated and the sperm that is nocturnally emitted is human life if only people were not baby killers by practicing abstinence. If only people thought about how cruel they are to all those failed fertilization opportunities.

  • Scout says:

    Bolling has exuberantly self-applied the “conservative” label when it suits his purposes and will just as enthusiastically style himself as a “moderate” if he feels that’s the new vogue. He may be a superior candidate to Cuccinelli, but the labels mean nothing. They really never have.

  • Yes, Ed, that is a very good, thought provoking extreme example of one side of the issue, not unlike a prohibition against thousand round magazines loaded with hollow tip projectiles somehow being a restriction on the right to bear arms. In both cases however one cannot find any modern legislative attempts to regulate such measures… nobody has proposed making abstinence illegal nor are the magazines in question in existence to my knowledge… but there again perhaps somebody could devise one so maybe we should make a law against them just for good measure.

    One the other hand, you DO have legislative attempts and successes by the leftists to mandate the opposite side of those two extremes, from outright gun bans to State Senator Obama voting to deny medical treatment to those stubborn fetuses that just refuse to die after being aborted. As well, there are many other Democrats who have voted in favor of abortion without restriction of any kind, right up to and including having term babies unfortunate enough to have been conceived at an inconvenient time or deemed to be a threat to the… I don’t want to say “mother” in these circumstances… hmmm. Let’s say “host”… that’s it.

    Where were we? Yes… right up to and including allowing term babies conceived at an inconvenient time or deemed to be a threat to the “health” (which could include virtually any definition) of the “host” to have their squirming thorax held firmly as their limbs are ripped off one by one and removed from the host vessel, or alternatively allowing their heads to pass through the rejection canal, punctured with scissors and the brain contents vacuumed therefrom so as to make it easier to remove the unwanted, burdensome biological material.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Bolling is a solid conservative with a limpid personality. I’m afraid he may get beat so badly at convention that his future political ambitions will likely be tarnished forever.

    He can’t out-conservative Cuccinelli enough to win the convention and his mixed messages, as pointed out in this post, only further degrade his chances.

    With the sloppy slate of candidates for LTG this year, I wish Bolling would have stayed in that position. He is a fine LTG and a great second string quarterback. But he’s not a starter.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    I agree with David on Bolling. He would have been much better to run for LG again.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    “Don’t try to codify religious beliefs into law.”

    So Edmundburkenator, which laws would you say we have that are not originated from some form of religious beliefs? Why not allow robbery? Why not rape? Why not extortion? These all have their links to religious and moral perspectives.

    Besides, the abortion issue should not be determined simply on religious beliefs. Like all laws I think they should be based not only in moral and ethical perspectives, but also reason, reality, and scientific facts. Abortion comes down to two questions in my opinion.

    1. Does innocent human life deserve protection? (the moral/ethical perspective)

    2. When does human life begin? (the rational, reasonable, scientific factual aspect).

    It is certainly not something that we should easily brush aside as “codify religious beliefs into law”.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    By the way, the reason the sanctity of human life should be a major issue of concern for all of us is it links back to the basic freedom and rights our society was founded on. Once a governmental power has the right to define what is life and what is not solely on an arbitrary definition (much like it is today), then that power can define it at any point it wants, thus endangering the freedoms and right to life of any member of society. This is not simply an issue about privacy. It goes to the core of our rights as individuals to live and associate freely.

  • Liberal Anthropologist says:

    While there are a few people who come at being pro-life from a religious perspective, it is no more a religious issue than any other civil right. People came at freeing (or enslaving) slaves based on religion as well.

    At the end of the day it is a question of what entities we extend civil rights to and how much. We have chosen to expand civil rights for very good reasons.

    Civil rights should be extended to humans at all stages of development. That is not a religious perspective any more than being in favor of full civil rights for gays or blacks or women is.

    You may choose not to extend civil or human rights universally, but I do not. And my position is not religiously based at all.

  • David Dickinson says:

    Since this posted today:

    America’s abortion rate fell 5 percent in 2009 in the greatest single-year drop seen since the federal government started tracking data on the procedure.

    Some 784,507 abortions were reported in 2009, compared to 825,564 in 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in its abortion surveillance report issued in Wednesday’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

  • Rtwng Extrmst says:

    So about 400K of those were female. Talk about a war on women…

  • Elder Berry says:

    Rtwng, the hard part is the details. Blind adherence to “life begins at conception” recently led to the death of a woman who didn’t have to die.

    A woman bearing an embryo or fetus is indisputedly alive and breathing. However you define “when life begins” for what she is carrying, the woman’s rights to control her body trump that.

    Anything else makes a woman nothing but a walking talking incubator.

    A woman is more than a uterus. The uterus inside her is hers , not yours, to manage.

  • Ed Myers says:

    If I think human life is measured by certain types of brain activity is it ok with you if I refuse food and shelter to any living organism that doesn’t have that brain activity? If you disagree are you willing to step in with a government program that provides the food and shelter for these living organisms (e.g. Fetuses or brain dead adults or elderly with severe dementia.)

  • Independent voter says:

    I read all the arguments about the rights of the fetus, when life begins, abortion clinic restrictions and so forth. But what about the unwanted children? How is a teenager going to care for a child? What about all the babies who will be legally dropped off at churches, hospitals, etc? Who will support a mother whose baby is born with horrendous birth defects and who will pay the enormous medical bills through the years? Are the states ready to assume responsibility for all these children?

    Remember, a fetus becomes a child when he or she exits the birth canal. Let us hear plans for caring for unwanted children if women are forced to carry to term.

  • NateDogg614 says:


  • edmundburkenator says:

    Adoption is a wonderful option. Anyone heard what the rates are on disrupted adoptions?

    Foster care is well-funded, right?

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Right Wing, it’s a conceit to think murder (and the rest) was “outlawed” by some religion first.

    Have you read your C.S. Lewis?

  • Cato the Elder says:


    When I was growing up my dad was a coal miner and my mom waited tables. We didn’t have much, but my parents instilled in me a love of Virginia. I never dreamed that I would one day have a chance to help lead this wonderful state, but thanks to you, that has been my privilege.

    Throughout my 21 years in public service I have done my best to stand strong for our shared conservative values, while at the same time working with Republicans and Democrats to get things done in state government. I think that effort has been successful, and I hope you agree.

    For the past seven years I have had the honor of serving as Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor, and it had been my intention to seek the Republican Party’s nomination for Governor in 2013. However, not everything we want in life is meant to be.

    I am writing to advise you that after a great deal of consideration I have decided to suspend my campaign for the Republican Party’s nomination for Governor of Virginia. Needless to say, this was a very difficult decision for me, and I know it will come as a surprise and disappointment to you, but I am confident it is the right decision.

    Four years ago I decided to set my personal ambition to be Governor aside and join with Bob McDonnell to create a united Republican ticket. Time has proven the wisdom of that decision. Governor McDonnell and I were elected in 2009 by historic margins, and for the past three years we have successfully worked together to get Virginia back on the right track.

    I had hoped that Attorney General Cuccinelli and I would be able to form that same kind of united Republican ticket in 2013. However, late last year Mr. Cuccinelli unexpectedly announced that he intended to challenge me for the Republican Party’s nomination for Governor.

    While I was surprised and disappointed by Mr. Cuccinelli’s decision, I was confident in my ability to win our party’s nomination for Governor in a statewide primary election, which was the method of nomination that had previously been adopted by the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia.

    However, in June of this year the newly constituted State Central Committee voted to change the manner in which we will nominate our candidates in 2013 from a statewide primary to a closed party convention. While I did not support that decision, it had a dramatic impact on the 2013 campaign.

    For the past several months my campaign team has worked hard to restructure our campaign to effectively compete in the convention process. While we have made a great deal of progress, I reluctantly concluded that the decision to change the method of nomination from a primary to a convention created too many obstacles for us to overcome.

    In addition, I know how divisive conventions can be, and I was concerned that a prolonged campaign between Mr. Cuccinelli and me could create deep divisions within our party. The convention process would have forced Republican activists to take sides against their friends in local committees all across our state. The wounds that can develop from that type of process are often difficult to heal.

    Conventions are by their very nature exclusive, and at a time when we need to be projecting a positive image and reaching out to involve more Virginians in the Republican Party, I am unwilling to be part of a process that could seriously damage our image and appeal.

    While it may have been in my self-interest to have continued the campaign and done my best to win without regard to the consequences of those actions, I have never chosen to place my self-interest ahead of our Party’s best interest, and I will not do so now.

    I know that my decision will surprise most people and disappoint many people, but I’m confident it is the right decision. I hope that my friends and supporters, as well as those who have chosen to support Mr. Cuccinelli, will respect and appreciate the reasons for my decision.

    It has been a great honor to serve as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia for the past seven years, and I wouldn’t trade the experiences and opportunities we have had for anything in the world. You helped make that possible, and for that I will always be grateful.

    I look forward to serving the remainder of my term as Lieutenant Governor and as Virginia’s Chief Jobs Creation Officer, and working with Governor McDonnell and the rest of our great team to build a better Virginia.

    I want to personally thank everyone who has done so much to support Jean Ann and me over the years, and I especially want to thank the thousands of people who had already pledged their support to my campaign for Governor. Your support means more to us than words can express. My greatest regret in suspending my campaign is the thought that I have let you down.

    In the coming days Jean Ann and I will be evaluating our future political options. I love Virginia and I value public service a great deal. I assure you that I will continue to look for ways to make a contribution to the public life of our Commonwealth.

    I can tell you this, I intend to remain actively involved in the 2013 campaigns – perhaps not as the Republican nominee for Governor, but as a more independent voice, making certain that the candidates keep their focus on the important issues facing our state and offer a positive and realistic vision for effectively and responsibly leading Virginia.

    Thanks again for your friendship, confidence and support. It is a privilege to serve you, and I look forward to seeing you soon in our travels across Virginia.


    Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling

  • edmundburkenator says:

    Shorter version: there are too many nuts at the convention to get the nomination.

    Cato, do you think he’s going to run as an independent? What was that second to last paragraph about?

    I saw McDonnell say he supported Bolling yesterday. I guess they didn’t talk…

  • Cato the Elder says:

    Unlikely. I just can’t see him running as an independent.

Leave Comment