Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Palin Remains Big Draw in Va.

Tim Craig

For the third time in six weeks, the McCain campaign has to adjust where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin holds a rally in Virginia because she is proving to be such a big draw.

The campaign announced today that Palin's visit Monday to Salem, located near Roanoke, is being moved from the city's civic center to the Salem Football Field to accommodate the expected crowd. Gail Gitcho, a McCain spokeswoman, said there has been "overwhelming response" for tickets for the event.

Two weeks ago, a Palin rally in Richmond had to be relocated to the parking lot of the Richmond Motor Speedway because of demand to see her. And in early September, a McCain-Palin rally in Fairfax City scheduled for a high school gymnasium had to be moved to a city park after all the tickets were snatched up in hours.

Although many Democrats believe Palin is one reason Democrat Barack Obama appears headed for a huge showing in Northern Virginia, she has higher favorable ratings in Virginia then she does nationwide.

In a Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday evenings, 51 percent of voters nationwide said they have a negative impression of her. But a Mason-Dixon Virginia poll conducted earlier in the week showed just 39 percent of Virginians held a negative view of Palin.

By Tim Craig  |  October 25, 2008; 8:25 PM ET
Categories:  Tim Craig  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Returns to Va Tuesday
Next: Kaine Hits the Road for Obama

Comments

Ummm.....no. The Fairfax rally was moved out of a high school not because they needed more space, but because Fairfax kicked them out.

Posted by: Jaxxon | October 25, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Indeed, the McCain campaign wanted us all to believe - lied? - that the move was because they were anticipating a larger crowd. But the reality is the FCSB gave them the boot because so many parents complained about a highly partisan event taking place during school hours.

Posted by: baskin1 | October 25, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

THINK IN TERMS OF POLITICAL PRACTICALITY

I heard at work one voter say that he voted for Bush because he thinks we needed to go into Iraq and annihilate so many Iraqis that the rest could not possibly represent any resistance to our being there, taking their oil, and setting up bases to go after Iran.

I admitted that certainly such a plan would solve many of our problems in the Middle East. . . . But try to find a President that would do that. For sure, even Bush wasn't going to be willing to annihilate that many people. Maybe if my fellow worker could find a Hitler to vote for, his plan could succeed. But unless we were willing to annihilate all those Iraqis, then the best course of action would be not to invade Iraq in the first place.

The same reasoning governs immigration and the growing Latino population. . . . . . . I think, overpopulation is one of America’s and the world’s biggest problems. But unless we have candidates, or perhaps a President who is willing to tackle overpopulation as a problem, then why vote for a Republican. Somewhere is this illusion that the Republicans will go against their Corporate Masters and crack down on immigration, but they have shown no real interest in doing so.

So therefore, why vote against our own best interest, which the Democrats represent ( unless you are in the top 5 or even 10% of the wealthiest people in America ). The best choice is to ignore the urge to vote for Republicans over the influx of illegals or overpopulation, because neither party will do anything about it, and in the end Republicans will simply screw you to enhance the transfer of wealth to the rich.

Posted by: coldcomfort | October 25, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

How exactly does a president "tackle overpopulation as a problem"?

Can presidents do that? Mandatory sterilization? One child laws like in China? Or should it be Darwinian: let the old and weak die so the strong survive? "Just say no to sex!"? March us out to sea like lemmings?

I guess the president needs to pass a law. But wait, Congress creates laws, not the president. It says so in the Constitution. All this arguing over which candidate will bring change is meaningless unless you also focus on the congressional elections. Yet, look around the web site here. You won't find out anything about the legislative branch of our government. The Post is too busy on celebrity watch.

Posted by: thuff7 | October 25, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Tim --

Have you checked out this video of Frank Wolf ignoring his constituent's questions and his supporters shoving a cameraman?

What's the story?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_mz3TlRtHs

Posted by: write55 | October 26, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company