The Unbearable Lightness of Being Mudcat Saunders, Who Just Expressed Support for Cooch.


    Borrowing from the title of Mudcat’s own book, there is indeed a fox in the hen house. And it turns out it is Mudcat Saunders himself. Today Mudcat Saunders revealed himself as the most obnoxious, biggest turncoat in VA electoral politics. I refer to his barely-short-of-an-endorsement statement that he hopes Cuccinelli wins. Calling McAuliffe a corporate Democrat, Saunders said he hopes Ken Cuccinelli wins the governor’s race in VA. I refer you to this article from the Washington Post.

    “I’m a friend of Ken Cuccinelli’s and I hope he wins,” Saunders said. “I’m a Democrat, and not a corporatist. I don’t support corporatist candidates.”

    Huh? This coming from the same Saunders who advised Mark Warner, the biggest corporate Dem in the nation and 6th richest corporate Dem in Congress.

    Mudcat had no problem with Warner’s work for the phony “Fix the Debt” (as if) crowd. Warner went on the public speaking tour via a Peter Peterson Americans for Prosperity (really Americans for the Prosperous) spin-off. His “Gang of 6” proposal would have ultimately stripped Social Security from the middle class, rendering it a poverty program. The rest of seniors would be up the creek despite the fact that we PAID for our Social security. But Cuccinelli slams McAuliffe, who supports Social Security among many other programs which help real people, rather than corporations? Are you kidding me? (note: unlike those born in the early part of the twentieth century, on average, my cohorts and I paid in more than we will get out)  

    And then there’s this gem from Mudcat:

    “Because I’m not blind, and I see a guy who’s got rich because of his political contacts, and I think that’s wrong,”

    (My aside: Are you sh***ing me?) And Mark Warner didn’t get rich milking contacts from years of rubbing shoulders with those in the seat of power? But as the WP notes, Mudcat helped Mark Warner develop his “NASCAR strategy” which many suggest was instrumental in Warner’s election. Again, Mudcat, thy name is hypocrisy.

    I am not needlessly bashing Sen. Warner here. I do this by way of illustration and to make some important points. Just to let readers here know, I volunteered many hours to get Warner elected to the governorship of VA (and donated to his campaign as well). Now, I would never want Warner to be governor again, US Senator again, much less president of the United States. But were he running against an extremist such as Ken Cuccinelli for any position whatsoever, you better believe I would vote for Mark Warner. (And were he a president who stole my Social Security, I would work to impeach the hell out of him. I’m not kidding about that, no matter who tries to do it.)

    But now Saunders suggests what is completely untrue, that there are not hugely important differences between McAuliffe and Cuccinelli, and that they do not all break in favor of the Democratic candidate. Let’s be honest. Corporate Dems are a real problem for both our party and the American people. That was true in Bill Clinton’s day and it is true in Obama’s presidency. Such Dems are not blameless in some of the important problems of the day.

    But there is much more than a dime’s worth of difference between the Tea party GOP candidates, all of them, and Democrats whoever they are. And Cucinelli is the worst among them all. Cucinelli is a hater, a racist, and a homophobe.

    Name a subject of any consequence and Cooch is on the wrong side of the issue. It is not “just” social issues, though those are enough. If a man cannot be fair and just to all the citizens, he should never have been AG much less governor. He has run his office by abusing his power. The man didn’t do his job as AG. He went on a vendetta against scientists. He failed to protect the citizens of Virginia against online and other fraud and scams. He issued spurious legal opinions. He has behaved unconstitutionally in defiance of the US Supreme Court. He has worked to subvert health care for Virginians. He is so ignorant you wonder how he ever got a law degree. The pages of Blue Virginia have been loaded with significant reasons why not to vote for Ken Cuccinelli. How hard can it be to get a clue?  Mudcat is worse than irrelevant.

    Worst of all, Ken Cuccinelli is a pawn of ALEC, which means Mudcat is blatantly wrong about his basic premise. When he says that Ken Cucinelli cares for people on the bottom, Mudcat is a terrible liar. He cares only about the Koch brothers and their 1% buddies (Foster Friess, CONSOL Energy, etc.). If I believed in book burning, I would also burn my signed copy of Mudcat’s book, which I am embarrassed to admit I own. Perhaps Cooch would like it?

    • NotJohnSMosby

      Terry doesn’t like Mudcat, and vice versa.  Terry didn’t hire Mudcat this election cycle, so Mudcat gets mad.  Thus, he pulls a Sheila Johnson and supports a Republican.

    • loudoun independent

      Spurned consultant turns coat and endorses opposing party’s nominee out of spite/personal advancement.

      I don’t think either will matter much at all.

    • pvogel

      he  was the keynote speaker at the   Mensa annual gathering,  and got  more  boos  that  that  sheriff in  maricopa  whos is flat out evil

    • may have been the dumbest ones he made.  The fact is, the capital-intensive (e.g., uses very little labor) process of mountaintop removal coal mining doesn’t just hurt, it DEVASTATES the people and communities at the bottom of those hills. A few headlines paint the picture:

      *Cancer Rates Higher Near Mountaintop Removal Sites

      *Mountaintop Removal Mining Birth Defects: New Study Suggests Controversial Coal Operations Linked To Adverse Health Effects

      *National Coal Expert: “Mining is a Loser” in Practically Every Way (“Hendryx has found that the heaviest coal-mining regions of Appalachia are worse off in just about every way compared to neighboring regions, similar in every other way except that they are below median in terms of coal production. The above-median coal-mining communities of Appalachia are also far worse off compared to the rest of the country. In making his calculations, Hendryx looked at a range of indicators, including health, education, poverty, environmental conditions, unemployment, and mortality rates. All told, Hendryx found that mountaintop removal mining’s economic cost to Appalachian communities totaled roughly $42 billion per year in lost health and lives.”)

      *The Human Cost of Coal: Mountaintop Removal’s Effect on Health and the Economy

      *Coal production costs the U.S. up to $500 billion each year in hidden health, economic, and environmental impacts

    • Elaine in Roanoke

      Dave “Mudcat” Saunders is nothing if not someone showing us this time just how his proudly worn flannel shirt is completely empty. He hasn’t made logical sense in his political reasoning for quite a long time (John Edwards for president???). And, several people here hit the nail on the head. If Mudcat isn’t paid off, he doesn’t play ball. He has about as much influence in the party as Doug Wilder has right now. (I’m not implying that Wilder wants monetary payoff. He just wants people to “kiss his ring.”)

      I sure as hell would like a real definition of a “Jacksonian Democrat.” Andrew Jackson was not only a slave owner (that was what allowed the plantations to exist ), but he was a slave trader, up until the year before he died.

      People throw that term around as if Jackson championed the “little man.” He was part of the “one percent” of his day, the equivalent to Mudcat’s “corporatists.” Just because backwoods people poured into the White House on his Inauguration Day doesn’t mean Jackson did anything for the “little people.”

      Ask the Cherokee if Jackson cared about the lowest among us.

    • The Richmonder

      Marcus is/was much better connected than Mudcat and endorsed McAuliffe at least partly because of ideology–Cuccinelli is too extreme, etc.–whereas what Mudcat did was clearly an act of spite by someone who was already out in the cold, unable to find work.  I actually feel bad for Mudcat–he will come to regret this–I don’t say that as a threat or anything–it’s just that Mudcat loves campaigning and this will make it very unlikely that he will be asked to work on any Democratic campaign in Virginia at least, maybe even in other states.

      Marcus actually gave something up; I don’t think Mudcat had anything to lose really.  Maybe he’ll get a token job at a right wing think tank.

    • OrangeDem

      I don’t think Powell ever had a chance, but given all of Cantor’s negatives, 2012 election–where Mudcat was senior strategist–should have been closer. Most if not all the ads for Powell practically trashed Democrats, trying to say that Powell was really a Republican.

      Almost felt like a campaign meant to drive Democrats away from the polls.

      He also brought Ralph Stanley in for a couple of appearances, which just seemed like a rehash of Saunder’s work for Warner. And would have been more effective in Southwest Virginia, which is hundreds of miles away from Cantor’s district.

    • Harkov311

      Come on Dave, do you really expect that “I don’t support corporatist candidates” thing to fly after you worked with Mark Warner, telecom millionaire?  Or did that not count, because he wasn’t an actual officeholder at the time?

      See, I’d like to have an actual definition of what you mean by “corporatist, ” because without knowing what you mean by that, you can just use it as a synonym for “any Democrat with rich friends that I don’t like.”  It seems pretty clear from that interview that Lowell posted from the 2008 primaries that you have a grudge against the Clintons for allowing NAFTA to happen, and an impartial observer might question whether or not you’re holding his connection with the Clintons against McAuliffe.  Either that, or failing in an automotive startup is, to Saunders, somehow worse than succeeding at a cell phone company.  Maybe that’s in that definition of “corporatist” that he refuses to define.  Maybe some kinds of businesses are more corporate-ish than others to him.  I can only speculate.

      But then, Dave, you dig yourself even further in.  You say your problem with McAuliffe is that he got rich using his political contacts.  Thus we can deduce that you think Ken Cuccinelli has not gotten ahead using his political contacts.  There is, however, one problem with this: it seems pretty certain that he did.  Consol Energy gave $100,000 to the attorney general’s gubernatorial campaign (that’s also a corporation by the way, Dave, so I can now also add energy companies to the list of corproations that are somehow not “corporatist,” apparently).  The attorney general recieved this donation after his office advised Consol on the best way to sue Virginia landowners over natural gas rights on their land.  This would be rather akin to a county sheriff accepting donations from a loan shark in exchange for giving the loan shark tips on how to shake people down that, while morally reprehensible, were still technically legal.  

      The attorney general may not have actually gotten a bribe in the literal sense, but only a fool would think Consol didn’t donate that money because they know Ken would be a good friend to them in Richmond.  And let’s not forget Consol and Star Scientific also gave him many other gifts.  Gifts that, I have to assume, they wouldn’t have given him were he not the attorney general and not favorably inclined toward these companies.

      So in closing, it appears that the attorney general has accepted donations form corproations (though whether this makes him a “corporatist” we don’t know, since you did not define what that meant), and it also appears that Mr Cuccinelli used his position as attorney general to enrich himself and his gubernatorial campaign, in some cases directly to the detriment of Virginia landowners.

      So given these facts Dave, how in holy hell can you say, with a straight face, that Ken Cuccinelli has not used his political position for profit, and has not done the bidding of corporations that helped him?

      That’s weaksauce, Dave.  Just tell us the real reason you’re for Cuccinelli.  Is it that he makes the Chamber of Commerce and the “Establishment” mad?  You know, David Duke made the “Establishment” mad in Louisiana, too.  And I think it’s a pretty good thing he didn’t win that gubernatorial race, don’t you?