I think that there is a mental illness that overtakes people when they run for office. I’m no psychologist but I have to wonder. What makes a person think they can win, when every poll, and person surrounding them tell them they are nuts? It must be pride…or it’s candidate delusion syndrome. We saw it in the primary race. 3 of 7 candidates were convinced they were going to pull a rabbit out of their hat. Only to have their hat handed to them.
Nationally there have been MANY instances of democrats running indy candidates to spit the conservative vote. Although, that “at this point” this has not yet proved to be the case, it is functioning as much the same thing. Since Clark’s campaign is helping out Tom Perriello so much, I hope he is at least getting paid.
So what makes a man like Jeff Clark continue to believe that he can win despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Symptoms of Candidate Delusion Syndrome:
- An inability to face reality
- A desire spend money that further feeds symptom 1
- A need to waste time (yours and others) by running all over district
- Refusal to drop out, but instead a drive to push forward
- Pride associated with “I’m a candidate” [though this in and of itself is common and not alone a symptom]
- Need to call opponents on the conservative side “liberals” or “moderates”
- Inability to see “past life mistakes” as campaign killers. (…?, etc) If your running as a democrat these things can help you. As a conservative not so much.
If you know someone with Campaign Delusion Syndrome get them help immediately.
It would be good if someone who Jeff knows and respects had a talk with him. His candidacy only helps Perriello.
why do you think Perriello wanted Jeff Clark in the debates? because it helps Perriello to have 2 people (P & Clark) attacking the leader, Robert Hurt.
Thus far Clark’s biggest fan has been Perriello.
Kelley you need to take a trip to Chase City it looks it is Perriello’s home town.
Seriously? “Candidate Delusional Syndrome”? Sounds like you are just upset that there is a candidate that may take some votes from the terrible candidate that the district GOP gave the voters. And a candidate that actually gives people in the 5th a choice. A CHOICE. This doesn’t seem like much of a “watchdog” site if most of the content is just a passive aggressive way of suggesting that legitimate candidates be bullied out of the race. What…will that hurt your GOP pet?
The peanut gallery commenters on this website make this site lose more credibility every day. It’s simply more right wing paranoia from the Republitards in the 5th. Anyone anywhere on the internet who expresses support of Clark is automatically accused of being a Perriello supporter. People think they know they intent of the founder’s, especially with respect to their view of a party system, but it’s so obviously apparent that they don’t.
Will: Mecklenburg will go for Robert Hurt. And Robert Hurt & Frank Ruff are campaigning in Mecklenburg part of 8/19. Look on Frank Ruff’s webpage for the announcement.
Just because you and others have gone galt doesn’t mean we all have.
Though, I’ll agree with you on the paranoia comment. During the primary there was a conspiracy around every tree here in the 5th. Maybe it’s all the sugar in southern sweet tea.
The question is “is Jeff Clark delusional”? He will NOT get 5% of the vote. He WILL lose. Why run knowing that? To get the “message out” that what “D.C. politicians are a bunch of treasonous jerks”? (my words not his) He doesn’t need to run to get that message out.
Patriot Eagle:
I do not agree Clark is a Perriello plant. I have spoken with him and find him genuine and true-blue.
I vehemently disagree with the method chosen by the GOP establishment for the primary. A convention would have served us all better. I strongly supported a different candidate than Hurt in the primary, with my money and my time. I still do not believe, as others who seem to have had an epiphany since the primary, that Hurt is the best of the seven candidates from the primary field.
That being said, Hurt won, for whatever reason. (Primarily, he had the upperhand in name recognition and money. CDS affected others in the primary which sucked the potential support for viable campaigns other than Hurt.)
Conservatives in the 5th had a choice for a more conservative candidate – in the primary. Clark should have run in the primary if he was to run at all. Clark is no choice at all now because we all, including Clark, know he simply will not win on November 2. The average voter is not as involved as we. The average voter will go to the polling booth and flip the switch (or press the button) for all candidates from one party or the other. This is the simple reality.
If I KNEW Hurt was not a committed conservative I would not be able to encourage support for his election. The fact is, I do suspect he may not be a committed conservative, based on past votes and statements made in this campaign. I also suspect Hurt may not be well-spoken because he has said or written things the consequences of which he or persons in his campaign simply do not understand – I think his campaign workers are “Googling” the latest GOP press release on various topics and are cutting and pasting these words into press releases for the Hurt campaign. The press releases are just horrible and not well thought out.
So, which is (for me)? Is Hurt not a committed conservative or is he just not careful with choice of words? Do we have enough information by which to judge whether Hurt is a true conservative or whether he is just a George Bush big-government “conservative”? At the end of the day I conclude I do not have enough well-founded information to make a judgement. If I felt reasonably certain Hurt would be a Bush-type Republican, I would say so.
As for the choices, Clark’s candidacy is still-born. (Even the darling of the Libertarians/3rd party people, Ron Paul, runs under the GOP banner in congressional elections because HE knows a third party candidacy is political suicide.) A vote for Clark is a vote for Perriello, not because Clark wants Perriello to win but because Clark will only pull votes from Hurt.
Perriello is an incorrigible leftist with his votes and a semi-moderate (if there is such a thing) with his words. I contend a vote for Clark is a vote for Obamacare, Cap & Tax, eventual Single Payer Health Care Financing, EnviroWackism, etc, i.e., the Obama Agenda.
Some have compared our choices with the choice the voters of Massachusettes in the special Senate election to fill the Kennedy seat. In that race, however, it was known the GOP candidate was a pro-abort, soft, so-called fiscal conservative. I sent some of my scarce and hard-earned money to get Scott Brown elected, not because I believed 100% in Brown but because the election of his opponent would have spelled automatic passage of the health care law without the Dems having to rape the Constitution to get it done (which has and will hurt them politicly). Would I vote for Brown over Coakley in any race? No. But at the time the stakes were too high. Clark is arguably more conservative than Hurt. But Clark will not win, because of the aforementioned typical, average voter. In this election the stakes are too high to throw my vote that may result in a Perriello re-election.
Here in the 5th, we have a candidate in the person of Hurt who is nowhere close to the danger represented by Scott Brown. The stakes are just as high this election. Hurt has made overtures to conservative groups in the district and has promised he will stand firm in Washington. Has he made these promises before? He probably never had to because he has never had serious opposition in a race. This time he knows he has opposition in the district from the conservative block because more than half the primary voters supported someone else and the Tea Partys are not enthusiatic about him. He also has opposition from the Dems. I am sure he knows the Tea Party (and others), will keep a close eye on his acts and votes should he be elected. In other words, because there are different campaign dynamics in this race than anything Hurt has faced before, I conclude he realizes the seriousness of the effect of breaking his promises on his re-election prospects.
I will not put my money or my vote in Perriello’s pocket. A vote for Clark is a gift to Perriello for which Perriello is earnestly trying to convince us to give him. Hence, his enthusiastic commentary on Clark. If I were Clark I would be embarrassed to know my back was being stroked by a person like Perriello who, on Novemner 3, will then stick a knife where his soft, callous-less hand used to be.
Great post! This sounds just like Kenny Golden in the 2nd district. I’m all for using the political system to get representatives in office. Primary, fundraising, endorsements, etc. The difference here is that Kenny had his shot, and failed. I can’t believe he used to be the chairman for the 2nd district republican party. After he lost, he just gives up and quits his own party? Weak. But everything is showing that he has absolutely no shot at winning. I’m sick of hearing everyone say it’s his right, and he deserves to be heard. So, if every bonehead wanted to run right now, we’d need to take our time and hear them out? Nope, not happening. I say let Nye an Rigell debate, and let the people decide on a real serious candidate. Although, Nye is a joke too. How often is he here talking with folks in the district? A few times a year? This November can’t come soon enough!
perriello has new ad on his campaign website. He attacks Robert Hurt but if you watch the ad, notice the most startling thing. Jeff Clark is in this ad with Perriello.
subtle but effective. Jeff Clark is elevated to the position of big challenger. This helps Perriello. and didn’t cost Jeff Clark a dime.
Patriot Eagle:
Re the Founder’s view of “the party system”, I am not sure they envisioned the so-called two party system that essentially controls American politics today.
They certainly warned of the dangers of allegiance to party over allegiance to constitutional principles, and they expressed concern over a person serving as representative usurping power for himself rather than looking out for the best interests of his constituents.
For these reasons and more the Founders established the system of checks on the aggrandizment of political power. Of course, the ultimate check lies with the people – through voting.
But proper use of that check requires an informed electorate – which we, generally, do not have. Perhaps the American people, because of the audacious acts of the O administration and the Leftist Congress, are awakening. Time will tell.
In your post above you seem to imply the Founders, at the beginning, were against our two-party system. The two-party system did not develop until the beginning of the end of Washington’s 2nd term. The warning against “the party spirit” or factions, was not a reference to Republicans vs. Democrats. The warning was against factions seeking to enlarge their power at the expense of the people. Arguably, this now exists with the GOP and the Jackass Party.
You are struggling (I presume) with what our is our proper role in this essentially corrupt, two-party system, especially as it comes to our vote in November. I think many of us are in the same struggle. It is a struggle of conscience. In seeking counsel and wisdom from our Founders, however, I am not sure we will find an exact statement or lesson from their history about what we should do in our current political environment.
Would the Founders have argued for pragmatism in our environment? Pragmatism, in the political sense, is, to me, a hated word. Pragmatism seeks common ground in a morally relative environment. It is sickening, and I would venture to propose the GOP lost its way due to pragmatism. I do not think the Founders displayed pragmatism. They certainly temporarily compromised principles for a greater, ultimate good, looking prudentially into the future for a better outcome as opposed to a hard stand resulting in failure of the ultimate goal of union.
I posit the proper stance for us to take is prudence. Prudence does not seek a settlement for its own ends, which is pragmatism. Prudence looks at the possible compared to the probable. Prudence looks to likely effects of certain acts. Prudence looks far enough ahead to the forks in the road should the immediate act not produce desired or planned results. Prudence looks at the negatives and positives MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR AS A RESULT OF DOING OR NOT DOING A CERTAIN THING.
In the Founder’s days, during the debate over the drafting of the Constitution, these men had the time to think things through, to deliberate, to change certain terms and clauses, and to compromise certain positions as long certain principles were preserved intact and the changes got them closer to the ultimate goal. But when it came to ratification of the Constitution, the Founders feared (I think rightly) that the Constitution as written was the last hope of effective union between the states. State interests so outweighed national interests that ratification of the Constitution was seriously jeopardized in many states, including Virginia.
In the end, James Madison’s solemn promise to lead the effort to amend the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights probably won over the remaining votes necessary for passage in Virginia. Although this did not satisfy Patrick Henry initially, Henry eventually came to support the Constitution and the government under it, not in a pragmatic compromise but in an act of prudence in envisioning what would happen should the government prove too weak for its own internal and external defense, the French Revolution providing Henry with a history lesson of likely outcomes of failure of the American experiment.
Prudence dictated the new nation would either live under the old association of the Articles of Confederation with eventual collapse into a European-style divided continent (with trade wars and rumors of trade wars), or the new nation would move forward under an imperfect yet amendable form of government ultimately accountable to the people and to the state governments.
Prudence. We are not in the position of the Founders at the Constitutional Convention, with time to debate and deliberate, to change course or offer new ideas. We are in the position of the Founders at ratification. November 2 is coming and we cannot stop it or slow it down. Our history lesson is 19 months of the Obama Agenda that should inform us of the prudent road to take in deciding who to support in this election. The only thing we can (possibly) stop or slow down is the Obama Agenda, and possibly turn the corner away from our nightmarish flirtation with marxism. In my opinion, prudence dictates for us in the 5th the need to consider the likely outcome of a vote for Clark, which, as I have stated, will result in a closer tally between Hurt and Perriello (assuming Hurt comes out on top), or will result in the re-election of Perriello. If Perriello wins and the the House of Reprsentatives remains in Democrat control by one vote, who among us will be glad to say we lived at such a time and produced such a sorry result, because we were determined to “stand on principle”? How does furthering the Obama Agenda translate into a stand on principle? Prudence, my friend!
In this election, a vote for Clark is nothing more than a gift to Perriello, and will do nothing to stop or slow down the Obama Agenda. A vote for Hurt probably will result in a slowing down of , possibly a stop to, possibly a turning away from, the Obama Agenda. Hurt has made promises to be a true conservative in Washington. I think Hurt is a moral person, which means I am willing to give him opportunity to prove it.
And, with the official and unoffical watchdogs around the District, Hurt will know that we the people of the District have accepted our responsibility for what has become of our government through our careless disregard of our national politics, and that we are watching him, and will watch him, and will hold him accountable for the votes he casts and his action or inaction on the issues.
This, Patriot Eagle, is our best hope. Clark is a dying ember that can only burn Hurt, and us, as it slowly fades out of sight. “Prudence, indeed, dictates” that we not either directly or indirectly assist Perriello. Prudence dictates a vote for, and support of, Hurt in this campaign. Prudence dictates we stay involved and informed for 2012.
Earlier this year I traveled to Perriello’s office when the heat of the health care debate was ongoing. I told his support staff and a legislative assistant that, should Perriello vote for the health care bill, I would do my utmost to see all of them join the unemployment line. I said it and, God help me, I meant it.
Another reason to support a GOP takeover:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/244143
After our experiences in the GOP primary fiasco I am more convinced than ever that this syndrome definitely exists. Some folks make the claim that Jeff Clark is a Perriello plant. I have not come across anything that could prove this. However, Jeff Clark has certainly offered himself up to be used as a tool for our destructive out-of-control big government liberal congressman.
I have had several conversations with Jeff, he appears to be what he says he is, and so far I take him at his word on this. That’s not my problem. My problem is that I do question the rationale and motivation. Jeff claims he is sending the message that the process should be open to all, and that is not in question either. It most certainly should, and it is. He is living proof of that. But, my problem with Jeff is that he has stated from the beginning he would run ONLY if Robert Hurt won the primary. He sincerely believes that Robert Hurt is just as bad as Tom Perriello, and he wants to tap into the the support of those who refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils” ever again. He calls this the principled position. To some this is a valid point, BUT in my opinion apparently he does NOT comprehend the larger and more important principle.
This principle being that IF the liberal democrats maintain their majority in congress and continue to support the socialist agenda being shoved down our throats this nation will CEASE to exist as the Republic we love!
I did NOT support Robert Hurt in the primary, BUT, he did win it. The deck was certainly stacked in his favor, but no rules were broken. There was NO illegality, and although I and MANY others were dissatisfied with the outcome, the results have placed us in the present position. We now have to work with the present situation, or possibly commit some sort of national suicide.
Now, I would like to place the responsibility for dealing with ANY congressman squarely where it needs to be place, and that is on US as voters.
All of us should consider this question. Who is more likely to pay attention to your opinions, needs, and convictions? Robert Hurt or Tom Perriello? I believe that Tom’s past performance tells the tale. He does NOT listen at all! I do believe that Hurt has heard the message from us, load and clear. If he does NOT listen, and acts like some of the other GOP establishment types then it is OUR responsibility to fire him, but this is possible ONLY if he wins – Time will tell.
Jeff Clark’s candidacy does allow some folks to feel like they have a choice. I just don’t see it that way. Jeff is going to pull some votes from the folks that just can’t stomach the thought of supporting Hurt, but I believe this simply gives Perriello another term, and hastens the destruction of our Republic.
A couple weeks ago I had a discussion with a conservative friend, who I highly respect. He told me that this nation is already gone, and that he would rather just put it to a quick end rather than let things keep going the way they are. He said he could NOT vote for Hurt because that will just make our national death a long and drawn out ordeal. He was prepared to euthanize our country rather than keep fighting. I just don’t buy that. That was his rationale for supporting Jeff Clark. I know my friend is part of a tiny minority, BUT when a total of 727 questionable votes GAVE us Tom Perriello, one of Barack Obama’s FAVORITE democrats, and certainly Nancy Pelosi’s pet. I would ask anyone who is planning on supporting Clark to reconsider, and if Robert Hurt wins then stay on him like “ugly on a gorilla” for the next two years, hold his feet to the fire, and if he doesn’t do what he should, then WORK to FIRE HIM! That is our responsibility anyway, and most of us have shirked it for a very long time.