Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Matt Lohr Campaign Strategy

Alright folks, alot of you are voicing your displeasure with Matt Lohr's campaign basically being about being a Republican and "demonizing Fulk". Now while I do not disagree with this assessment, what would you all do?
I believe this is the strategy that Lohr needs to use in order to win. Unless he knows about some specific problem with government that he wants to fix (other than eminent domain, which both he and Fulk want to fix).
So I want to hear from you all. How would you run Matt Lohr's campaign if you were the manager (keep in mind that your purpose here would be to win the election, not lose it for him).
I am interested to hear what you think.

24 Comments:

  • At 8/23/2005 5:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You're right GOPHokie, Matt needs to make fulk look as bad as he possibly can. Attack, Attack, Attack. Turn him into the most vile creature in people's mind that he can.

     
  • At 8/23/2005 6:53 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    He has to point out their differences. Demonize him politically, not literally.

     
  • At 8/23/2005 9:11 PM, Anonymous Teddy said…

    Your last comment shows your innocence. Just watch what Lahr’s campaign does hokie, and take great pride in your boy, and your party as they work to destroy a good man's standing in his community.

     
  • At 8/23/2005 9:57 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I'm not saying accuse him of being a rapist. I'm saying point out that he thought John Kerry would be a better president than George W. Bush. Actions speak louder than words.
    I have said this before and I will say it again, Matt Lohr is far from being a perfect candidate. Even so, he still supports what I support. He believes gun rights are important. He believes we should pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He believes that we should shrink government, not expand it. He is pro-life. Therefore, since he is a Republican, I will support him. As soon as someone shows me where he doesn't support some of those positions, I will recind my support. Until then, quit telling me how misguided and innocent I am.
    I realize you all don't like Lohr and believe Fulk is the right guy for the job. Thats great. But I support Lohr for the reasons I have stated.

     
  • At 8/23/2005 10:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There is a simple way for Lohr to win this race, to shut up and ride Kilgore's coattails to Richmond. State wide republicans are going to win huge in this district as history has shown, Lohr needs to stop giving people reasons to vote against him and start reminding people he is with Jerry and Bill and Bob. also, his campaign and local volunteers should start working more with the state wide guys.

     
  • At 8/23/2005 11:06 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I agree 100%. That is what I have said from the get-go.

     
  • At 8/23/2005 11:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Call Lohr and ask him what guns he owns. Then call Fulk and ask him. See how they compare. Fulk owns guns that would make Matthew wet his pants... You're talking about things you know nothing of.

     
  • At 8/24/2005 5:18 AM, Anonymous saywhat?? said…

    Hey GopHokie,

    The differences -- except for an R behind one name and a D behind the other -- are not that profound. That's what we keep saying. To try to demonize Lowell politically is to lie about him. I really hope the Rs don't try, but if they do, I hope it flies back in their faces. They'll deserve it.

     
  • At 8/24/2005 10:27 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Anon, I didn't say Fulk was against gun rights. I said Lohr was for them.
    saywhat, I have being that for a while now. I said they are relatively the same (did you see my breakdown of 14 issues, 9 were the same).
    Thats why I said the only things different about these 2 guys are their stance on the gay marriage amendment, the tax increase, their choice of presidential candidate and the child lunch policy. Thats pretty much it.
    Out of those 4 issues, I agree with Lohr on 3. I think the district does too. So its Lohr's job to point those 3 things out.
    Conversely, its Fulks job to point out the school lunch policy, Lohr's absenteeism and Lohr's youth.
    At the end of the day, whichever one of those messages is heard louder will win.

     
  • At 8/24/2005 8:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Lohr should use the rose garden strategy, basically run as the GOP incumbent. If he tries to demonize Fulk, he'll hurt himself b/c most people think Fulk is a decent guy [he's not, but I'm not going to get into personal attacks here.] All he has to do is be a decent hard working guy with an R next to his name. He's starting out with a win, he should basically run a straight out positive race. He can run a few comparitive mail pieces [or the State GOP can] that point out the differences between D's and R's.

     
  • At 8/24/2005 9:20 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Yea exactly. Point out the differences and move on. Run as the GOPer.

     
  • At 8/25/2005 5:54 PM, Anonymous not homohokie said…

    gophokie

    you really seem bothered by the idea of gays as couples
    why does that bother you so much?
    looking over what you've written i see that you favor a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
    please explain to me the arguement keeps getting made that gays weaken the marriage between man and woman.

     
  • At 8/25/2005 9:00 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I just don't agree with letting them get married.
    Marriage is and always has always been between one man and one woman. If we say 2 men can get married or 2 women, then it doesn't mean anything anymore.
    Don't forget, it we allow gay couples to marry, we must let a man have more than one wife, a woman have more than one husband,etc.
    We also can't really deny a person from marrying a relative or animal either.
    I don't think we should prevent gay couples from seeing each other in the hospital, or things like that, but they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

     
  • At 8/25/2005 11:47 PM, Anonymous padawah said…

    O.K. Hokie,
    You are more adult than all of the people you support. Do you realize that you just said exactly what Fulk has been saying all along? And please know, you said it very well! You are a really good person, you just need to think for yourself more. When you do, you are really, really, who you are...............

     
  • At 8/26/2005 10:27 AM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    But Fulk says we don't need an amendment.
    We do. I firmly believe that gay marriage will be made legal by some court, somewhere. Then we will need a constitutional amendment at the federal level, protecting the defense of marriage act. Then we need a Va amendment to ban gay marriage (and all other non-traditional kinds) here.
    Why not get the one out of the way right now, then we don't have to have a special session in the future to fix the problem.

     
  • At 8/26/2005 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    That argument makes no sense at all. I hope you're not planning on a career in law. If so you'll have an up hill struggle with that kind of rationalization.

     
  • At 8/26/2005 11:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Marriage is a religous institution. The scriptures CLEARLY forbid homosexual acts. Christian faith with many has been replaced with a humanist faith of sorts. Leadership in many churches has been influenced by humanist thought.
    Homosexuals have the same rights as protected by the Constitution...no less no more.

     
  • At 8/26/2005 12:51 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    I have no plans for a career in law.

     
  • At 8/27/2005 9:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Response to anonymous 12:54pm:

    You state that marriage is a religous institution.

    The Bill of Rights says:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

    Couldn't it be reasonalbly argued that if:
    a) marriage is a religous institution.

    and

    b) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    then if (a) is a true statement, and (b) is a true statement, then a state constitutional amendment dealing with marriage (a religous institution) can reasonably be considered "establishment of religion" and therefore in violation of the first sentence in the first amendment of the constitution of the United States?

    gophokie and friends,

    why do you hate the constitution?
    why do you want to undermine what so many of our ancestors fought and died to preserve and protect?
    why do you hate freedom of choice, the very underpinning of our foundation?
    why do you hate America?
    do you think you are smarter than Thomas Jefferson and our founding Fathers?
    if you don't love America, why don't you just leave and go somewhere they do things the way you like things done and quit trying to change America?

     
  • At 8/27/2005 12:09 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    If we use your theory anon, we should do away with marriage altogether. The gov't should not issue marriage licenses at all, if you want to look at it that way. I have heard this stance from a alot of Libertarians.
    I'm not really against that.
    I believe you should get married in a church (or mosque, etc) with a pastor (rabbi, etc.) doing it. The marriage license given to you at the courthouse is just the gov't finding a way to get more money from everyone.
    The problem is, we issue marriage licenses. As long as our govt issues them, I will be against letting anyone other than man-woman couples getting them. A man-woman marriage not a Christian institution, its a multi-cultural institution (yes we GOPers have heard that word and know how to use it once in a while).
    If someone wants to end marriage licenses, more power to them. Either way, marriage should never be defined as anything other than one man and one woman.

     
  • At 8/27/2005 10:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    My "theory" is simply, if it ain't broke, leave it the f*** alone. What in the h*** makes you feel qualified to mess with the Constitution of the United States?
    Has nothing to do with gay marriage, it has everything to do with the purity and the brilliant design of the government that we are blessed to have. I am so sick of tidbits like you wanting to change the best form of government in history because you either worship a textile or are afraid of your own sexual tendencies. Fix yourself. Take the plank from your own eye before you endeavor to remove the speck from Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's and Ben Franklin's.

     
  • At 8/28/2005 12:11 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    So you agree we should only allow man-woman marriages.
    I'm glad you see it my way.

     
  • At 8/30/2005 1:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    let me guess lohr should simply remind evryone he is the republican, and smile, he'll win in a landslide. thank god for democracy!

     
  • At 8/30/2005 2:16 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Yep. And all the dems in Richmond city, Alexandria and Arlington can do the same.
    Don't act like GOP areas are the only ones who vote knee jerk one way or the other. Everyone does it. Doesn't make it right, but its a fact of life.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home