Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

51st District Outlook

By Greg L | 27 October 2009 | 51st HOD District | 17 Comments

In 2007 Delegate Paul Nichols took this District against a weak Republican candidate, promising to be a moderate.  Two years later, his voting record is somewhat mixed, he hasn’t connected with his district, and Republicans have come up with a very interesting candidate to challenge him in retired Colonel Rich Anderson.  This is one of the more interesting races to watch, and the fireworks over the past few weeks have definintely made it one of the more dynamic ones.

Nichols has had sort of a split personality as a legislator, promoting some really strong bills dealing with the immigration issue for which he deserves a lot of credit, but then pushing pretty hard to the left with some of his other votes.  His moderate image got further tarnished by the statements he made when opening up an Obama campaign office in Woodbridge last year when he characterized Republicans as “Nazis”, perhaps getting a little more into the moment than would be advisable in this district.  Everyone has something to be both happy about and upset about in his legislative record, for those paying attention.  At the beginning of this election cycle though, most voters didn’t seem to know he was their Delegate.

Rich Anderson comes off a distinguished career as not only a retired Colonel, but as the Brigadier General who commanded the Civil Air Patrol.  His wife has been very active in local politics while he was required to keep a low profile because of his service, and he is very well connected with a lot of the Republican activists in this district who clearly think the world of him.  Anderson started early on a tremendous door-knocking campaign and got way ahead in terms of voter contact before the Nichols campaign noticed what was going on, and has been strongly competitive in the campaign finance arena even against an opponent that could self-finance.

The election is perhaps most notable for the dust-up about Paul Nichols getting arrested for assaulting a cop in 2006, and Anderson’s release of his unredacted arrest record which, as it turned out, had Paul Nichol’s Social Security Number on it as his driver’s license number.  How a lawyer failed to take advantage of Virginia law to get a different number used as his driver’s license number is beyond me, but this gave Nichols the opportunity to play the victim here and make claims that Anderson broke the law by releasing it.  Meanwhile, all the talk in the district is focused alternatively on what Nichols did to warrant being arrested for assaulting a cop and Anderson releasing an arrest record where Nichol’s SSN appears as the driver’s license number.

The Nichols campaign is really making a huge deal of this, which isn’t what an incumbent would typically do if they were ahead.  Usually when you’re in the lead, you talk about other things, especially positive ideas, and let the furor about things like assaulting cops die away.  That the Nichols campaign is spending so much energy and money on this — even going up on the air with ads where they put an image of Anderson in jail, which seems an awfully big stretch here – tells me that the Nichols campaign feels they’re in trouble here.  This just isn’t what incumbents who are leading in their polls tend to do in their campaigns.  This lash-back looks a lot more desperate.

The top-ticket dynamic will have some influence in this race that will play out in some of the larger precincts such as Lake Ridge and Old Bridge, were I expect the turnout for Bob McDonnell will be pretty substantial and drive turnout higher than in 2007.  Deeds hasn’t caught fire in this district by any means, so if turnout or lack thereof generated by the top of the ticket in typically more Democrat-friendly Occoquan and Rockledge is proportionally lower as I expect, Bob McDonnell will have some pretty sizeable coat-tails that will pull Anderson from being within the margin of error into pretty positive territory.

Anderson could win by about 5% here, but either way these are both good people where the decisions about who voters should support are better based on their policy positions rather than anything happening in the dynamics of this race.  Anderson represents a pretty straightforward conservative perspective, while Paul Nichols is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat with a solid record and understanding of the illegal alien issue that considerably redeems him despite some of his votes on other issues.  Since the turnout dynamic in this race favors Bob McDonnell, Anderson is in a good position to capitalize on that dynamic since his positions and McDonnell’s are virtually indistinguishable.  Voters who bothered to inform themselves and are voting for McDonnell will find themselves pulling the lever for Rich Anderson much more often than those choosing to split their ticket in a race where the incumbent is not well known.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

17 Comments

  1. Gone Hunting said on 27 Oct 2009 at 9:54 am:
    Flag comment

    This is actually a pretty good assessment. Nichols is really hurting himself with the over the top ads he is running against a US Air Force veteran. Nichols would do well to consider that vets are breaking in huge numbers (66%) toward Bob McDonnell and attacking a vet (Anderson) because he outed you on an arrest that you cold have avoided if you had acted like an adult and not assaulted a cop, is not a good strategy.

    Let’s face it, the more Nichols rants own about “his arrest”, the more he reminds people that he was, well “arrested”! Stupid, but never interrupt the enemy when he’s self-destructing…

  2. Dittyman8 said on 27 Oct 2009 at 9:56 am:
    Flag comment

    I got a Paul Nichols flyer last night in the mail, saying that Rich Anderson is under “criminal investigation” though they left very vague. Gee, Paul Nichols gets arrested, gets the charges dropped, the gets his arrest record expunged. However, the Anderson campaign brings the arrest to the public’s attention, so Nichols tries to make Anderson out to be the criminal for telling the truth. I understand the legal niceity of the expunged record, but what’s the worst thing that would happen to Anderson? Some two-bit fine? Please, Delegate Nicols, focus on a real issue rather than hide your own misdeeds and cuddling of criminals in your bills in the House of Delegates.

  3. Dittyman8 said on 27 Oct 2009 at 10:00 am:
    Flag comment

    Sorry for the errors before - I got a Paul Nichols flyer last night in the mail, saying that Rich Anderson is under “criminal investigation” though they left it very vague. Gee, Paul Nichols gets arrested, gets the charges dropped, then he gets his arrest record expunged. However, the Anderson campaign brings the arrest to the public’s attention, so Nichols tries to make Anderson out to be the criminal for telling the truth. I understand the legal niceity of the expunged record, but what’s the worst thing that would happen to Anderson? Some two-bit fine? Please, Delegate Nichols, focus on a real issue rather than hide your own misdeeds and cuddling of criminals in your bills in the House of Delegates.

  4. Gnarly said on 27 Oct 2009 at 10:30 am:
    Flag comment

    Thank you for that excellent overview. This to me is the most interesting legislative race in the entire Commonwealth. I really felt all along it was a dead even race before the Nichols NC arrest attack/counter-attack ensued.

    We’ll know how this all shakes out in terms of votes just on specific precinct turnout and margins in this race. What was the net effect of these tactics? 1) The hit piece on Nichols moved votes 2) There was a backlash against Anderson for the hit 3) The hit response back on Anderson worked…or 4) there is a backlash on Nichols for his “jail” spot in both making a weak attack and drawing more attention to the original hit against him on the arrest.

    I couldn’t agree with you more when you say the Nichols campaign made too big a deal about the “arrest” hit on them. All the Nichols campaign accomplished was coalescing the GOP/Ind vote for Anderson and ginning up even more turnout. At one point in te race 1, 2, and 3 above were a complete wash. Now with #4 above, Nichols has lost this race by 2 to 3 points.

  5. annon said on 27 Oct 2009 at 2:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Nichols looks like a two faced politician. Playing moderate to republicans who visit his office in Richmond and then calling us nazis at campaign rallies. What a piece of work.

    I will give him a piece of my mind when I see him next.

    He usually hangs out at McDonalds on old bridge road, so next time I see him, I will not be so kind.

  6. Kevin C. said on 27 Oct 2009 at 4:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    I guess I SHOULDA put “this” over here?

    I just hope McDonnell’s “coat tails” are long enough to carry some of the close(r) races.

    In particular, the 51st where Nickles latest bit of PROPAGANDA quotes the Old Bridge Observer as saying, “The Prince William Commonwealth’s Attorney (Paul Ebert) said, It’s against the law BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…He has called for a special prosecutor…BLAH, BLAH, BLAH…more weak
    BULL$#!T…BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.”

    What is DOESN’T say is that Paul Ebert (BUSTED a few years back for fishing OVER THE LIMIT in the Chesapeake) gave Paul F. (for FU**STER) Nickles (BUSTED for ASSAULTING a POLICE OFFICER, RESISTING ARREST, and OBSTRUCTION in North Carolina in ‘06) a THOUSAND DOLLARS in campaign contrubutions, according to www.VPAP.org!

    Pretty much your DICTIONARY DEFINITION of: THICK as THIEVES!

    If ANYONE should be investigated, EBERT should be, for placing PARTISAN POLITICS before the performance of his (SWORN) duty!

    That’s right, his OATH of ALLEGIANCE is to the people of Prince William County, NOT to Pauly, the WEASEL, Nickles! (I STILL laugh my A$$ off when I picture that little dirt bag EATING a face full of PAVEMENT!!!)

  7. Kevin C. said on 27 Oct 2009 at 4:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    annon said on 27 Oct 2009 at 2:16 pm: “Nichols looks like a two faced politician.”

    Have I not said many, MANY times that Nickles is a PROFESSIONAL LIAR?

    People, this guy LIES for a LIVING!

  8. Kevin C. said on 27 Oct 2009 at 4:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gone Hunting, “…never interrupt the enemy when he’s self-destructing…”

    X-L-N-T

    So, just out of curiosity, when do you suppose the TRUTH will come out about Nickles helping a SEXUAL PREDATOR commit a crime?

  9. Kevin C. said on 29 Oct 2009 at 1:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    If NUT JOB Nickles is TOO STUPID to answer his OWN question, the one he asks in today’s mailer, then he’s TOO STUPID (and CROOKED) to represent us in Richmond!

    Here’s how STUPID this CLOWN is!

    Q: “Do we want a Delegate who breaks the law?” (KNUCKLEHEAD Nickles Mailer received 29OCT09)

    A: NO, we do NOT want a Delegate who ASSAULTS a police officer!

    A: NO, we DON’T want a Delegate who RESISTS arrest!

    A: NO, we DON’T want a Delegate who OBSTRUCTS justice!

    A: NO, we DON’T want a Delegate who LIES for a living!

    A: NO, we DON’T want a Delegate who votes to make it EASIER to put DRUNK DRIVERS back on our roads just so he can make it easier to line HIS OWN pockets!

    A: NO, we DON’T want a Delegate (Nickles) who voted “YES” to allow CONVICTED CRIMINALS to work in our SCHOOLS!

    A: NO, we DON’T want a Delegate (Nickles) who helped a SEXUAL PREDATOR commit a crime!

    Anything ELSE you want to know, STUPID?

  10. Freedom said on 29 Oct 2009 at 4:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wonder whatever happened to Bryanna and her other 5 - 6 aliases???

  11. Anonymous said on 30 Oct 2009 at 1:19 am:
    Flag comment

    Freedom you are funny! It’s more like 10-15! ;-)

  12. Kevin C. said on 31 Oct 2009 at 4:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    Please do not disturb Bryanna, AKA Sybil, and all her “personalities.”

    They’re waiting patiently by the mail box for their
    SHAM WOWS!

  13. Not Kevin C said on 31 Oct 2009 at 11:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, Kevin C., are you the guy who shows up at events with the “Paul Nichols is a liar” t-shirt? Got to say, man, you seem a little obsessed, but hey, I don’t know what Nichols did to you. I heard you got booted from some job for misconduct and Nichols was on an appeals panel that denied your claim. What’s the story? Fill us in man.

  14. Kevin C. said on 1 Nov 2009 at 2:08 am:
    Flag comment

    Not Kevin C said on 31 Oct 2009 at 11:52 pm: “I heard you got booted from some job for misconduct…”

    It is PERFECTLY CLEAR that what you do best, like the LOW LIFE CRIMINAL, Nickles, is MANIPULATE the TRUTH!

    The FACT of the matter is, Nickles helped a HOMOSEXUAL PREDATOR commit a crime!

    A department director in PWC who used his position to PREY on ambitious, naieve youn MEN (while at the same time
    MIS-appropriatiing YOUR tax dollars).

    The BOTTOM LINE, and the TRUTH, is Nickles is a DIRT BAG who LIES for a living!

    So, what’s your NEXT question, Harry?

    BTW, my T-shirt says, “Paul Nichols is a LIAR and a THIEF”

  15. Xportdefender said on 1 Nov 2009 at 10:44 am:
    Flag comment

    Whatever that flyer said about an investigation is a bold faced lie. No doubt a typical desperate tactic like the type we have seen by the abomination called the Democratic party. AND having known Anderson for almost 40 years I can guarantee he will not be assaulting ANYBODY.

  16. Kevin C. said on 2 Nov 2009 at 3:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Teen boys claim sex abuse by Gainesville businessman

    A Gainesville businessman is in jail after two 17 year old boys told police he sexually assaulted them, one of them saying the abuse began when was 10.

    Looks like a job for Paul F(for FU**STER) Nickles!

    Defender of DRUNK DRIVERS, DRUG ADDICTS and CHILD MOLESTORS!

    (Just look at his FULL PAGE Yellow Page ad in ANY/EVERY phone book)

  17. sloper said on 2 Nov 2009 at 4:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    You Republicans really are a bunch of losers. Do you really think anyone cares what you write.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1181