Virgnia Democrat SURGING To Reelection!!

A new poll from Survey USA shows that despite the huge swing in public opinion against President Obama and the Democrat agenda one Virginia Democrat is riding a wave of Democrat enthusiasm that may sweep him back into office.

Confused?

I am too.

I had decided to wait on blogging about the recent Survey USA poll of the Virginia 5th until they also released their poll of the Virginia 9th. Two polls are better than one! I'm glad I waited. The results of the VA09 poll seem so messed up it's undercut my initial enthusiasm for the VA05 results.

Look at the numbers behind the poll showing Rick Boucher up 52% to 39% over Morgan Griffith. Survey USA is projecting that 33% of voters will be Democrats, 35% will be Republicans, and 29% Independent. Back in 2006 (Boucher was unopposed in 2008) Survey USA had a poll with 38% Democrats, 35% Republicans, and 25% Independents. This is a shift between the Democrats and Republicans of only five points, despite a huge wave nationally and in Virginia (Governor Bob McDonnell!)

Something isn't right.

This made me curious about VA-05. Here's 2010. Here's 2006. The two are virtually identical!

Now I'd usually say that this should mean that Perriello is even MORE behind Hurt, but I noticed some other funky numbers. I expect black voters to be coming out less than in 2008, but Survey USA is assuming they'll be even smaller as a group than in 2006!

And what about 2008? I think that a lot fewer Democrats will come out in 2010 without Obama around, but Survey USA is predicting a 17 point swing in favor of the Republicans if you look at their 2008 poll versus their 2010 poll! I expect a swing, but that seems absurd!

Something doesn't add up.

I've said before that we can make a few assumptions based on the knowledge that both Hurt and Perriello have polled. If Hurt was ahead by this much in his poll he would have released the data. If he was up by this much he wouldn't be treating Jeff Clark like a jerk and keeping him out of the debate. He'd be working hard but magnanimous in victory.

So I don't think Hurt's own polling agrees with Survey USA.

The fact that Hurt's campaign before this poll was questioning the validity of Survey USA also makes me concerned. I think Survey USA showed some strength in 2009 in polling the Governor's race, but it's a lot easier to approach an entire state with major metropolitan areas that try to pick up on a large sprawling House district with a lot of different communities. That's true of both VA09 and VA05.

Right now, Survey USA is trying to tell us that VA09 will be MORE DEMOCRAT than VA05. Republicans outnumber Democrats in VA09 by two points (35% to 33%). They are ahead of Democrats in VA05 by FIFTEEN POINTS (43% to 27%). Everyone knows that VA09 is the more Republican district. This just seems utterly absurd. I think Survey USA got it wrong in VA09, in favor of Boucher. I think they got it wrong in VA05, in favor of Hurt. Until I see more convincing data I'm going to continue to treat this race as a dead heat.

Show Me the Money!

Now that the FEC reports are filed, I'm starting to wonder just how expensive this race in Virginia's 5th District will get.

Perriello has an early fundraising advantage. His campaign reported $1.7 million in cash on June 30, with $3,000 in debts. Hurt's campaign had $216,000 in cash and about $85,000 in debts.

When you consider the money Hurt owed to his Beltway consultants he's at about $130,000 cash on hand, compared to Perriello's commanding $1.7 million. I could write a post that rubbed this fact into every the face of every Hurt supporter who claimed that the money would roll in after the primary. I could say that this proved my point that Hurt is having serious financial problems. Or that Hurt will depend heavily on outside groups to "bailout" his campaign. Hell, I could even point out that Hurt's $130,000 on hand is pretty close to Virgil Goode's $111,540.64 on hand--AND HE'S NOT EVEN RUNNING!!

But I'm a better man than that.

More importantly, if you look at Perriello's fundraising pace so far this year and his performance from 2008 I think he could easily reach another $1 million raised before election day. Perriello and Goode personally spent about the same amount in 2008, but Perriello benefited from a significant last minute investment from national Democrats. About $700,000 or so was spent on his behalf in 2008, while Republicans kicked in a minor $100,000 or so for poor Virgil.

The Democrats and their labor allies will throw down big money for Perriello this year. I'll put their commitment at at least another $1 million. With some generous rounding, that puts Perriello at almost $4 million for the election campaign to come. And Hurt . . .

Where will Hurt be?

It's a concerning question for conservatives here in the Fifth.

Breaking! Perriello attacks Hurt as illegal anchor baby

Wow, I don't see how Hurt can recover from this devastating article that just ran in the Danville Register & Bee. Political reporter Catherine Amos was in a rush to get this out, so it's not posted online yet. I've typed up the print version. It's a must read!

Perriello attacks Hurt as illegal anchor baby

Democrat Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Ivy, attacked his Republican opponent Robert Hurt for being the child of illegal immigrants - but there is confusion as to where exactly Hurt was born.

Perriello's campaign manager, Lise Clavel, said she was told Thursday that Hurt's real biological parents were illegal immigrants from Mexico - a small village in Chiapas to be precise - and they had smuggled across the border into America shortly before Hurt's mother gave birth. Being born on American soil is sufficient for citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but opponents of illegal immigration propose changing this birthright citizenship. Lise said she was told Hurt was an illegal anchor baby by "anonymous sources," which led Perriello to release the following statement.

"It's disappointing that during these tough times, Robert Hurt would take a job away from a real native born American. The 5th District needs Americans running for office, not the child of illegal immigrants from Mexico."

Rather than praising his opposition to illegal immigrants taking jobs from American politicians, Danville Tea Party vice chairman, Darriel Burnett, saw Perriello's attack as pandering to 5th District conservatives.

"It's all too convenient that his opponent happens to be the love child of illegal immigrants," Burnett said. "If we were really opposed to illegal immigrant, he would have voted against the tax bill -- cap and trade -- and he would have voted against the stimulus. Why did Perriello allow an anchor baby to even be his opponent? He should have stopped this from happening. His failure to prevent Hurt from running shows why Perriello has to be defeated--by Hurt. As far as I'm concerned, it's a little too late, and a little too little."

However, according to the online resource "The Google," Hurt's biography does not mention his Mexican heritage. Hurt, who now lives in Pittsylvania County, is the father of three.

Sean "P. Diddy" Harrison, Hurt's campaign manager, said Hurt had never been the child of illegal immigrants to Mexico, but that the candidate's location of birth was deliberately confusing.

"Talk about cynical political stunts," Harrison said in a statement. "Tom Perriello is clearly misrepresenting the situation. There is only one candidate in this race who has consistently been accused of being from outside of the district: Tom Perriello. Even though he was born and raised in the district, we're going to send him back to New York this November. Which is actually where Robert was born. But that's not the point."

Harrison added that he had to finish the e-mail before Chris LaCivita found out he was sending out a statement without his permission.

Hurt's parents, who would know if they are illegal immigrants from Chiapas, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Stay tuned for how this will shake up the campaign . . .

Is Catherine Amos a Secret Agent for Perriello?

I have been surprised with the level of coverage for the election in Virginia's 5th District this year, especially the low regard for both democracy and its readers that the Danville Register & Bee has been showing. The most recent article from their new reporter Catherine Amos is making me question if Amos, and perhaps the entire Danville Register & Bee paper, are actually secret agents pushing to get Perriello reelected. As we all know, Perriello was swept into office in 2008 through a combination of factors. But one that cannot be forgotten is the endorsement by the Register & Bee and their biased coverage of the election. I had thought that the paper was trying to make amends with their failure to fact check and giving Robert Hurt the benefit of the doubt throughout the primary. But now I'm worried that they are handling this election so badly they are actually trying to get Perriello reelected.

Today's debate about the debates article from Catherine Amos has the headline "Hurt attacks Perriello for declining one-on-one debate." With such a clear statement in the headline, I expected the article to justify the claim that Perriello has declined the one-on-one debate. Instead, the article notes that Perriello's campaign claims they have not declined the debate and the one objective source of information, Lynchburg Regional Chamber of Commerce President Rex Hammond, was not available for comment.

Will the Danville Register & Bee be publishing these headlines?

"Hurt attacks Perriello for being secret Muslim terrorist."

"Hurt attacks Perriello for being a Martian lawyer."

I guess Amos never learned at journalism school that her job is to be objective and neutral in these fights, trying to find the truth to hold politicians accountable. A headline like today's imparts on the reading the sense that Hurt is right and that Perriello has declined the debate. The truth, that there is disagreement between the camps, isn't mentioned until later in the story. Why couldn't Amos come up with "Hurt claims Perriello is ducking debates" or something like that?

At first I was going to blame this on lazy reporting, which it clearly is. Amos was in such a rush to come up with a story for Friday she ran with something she hadn't fully checked out. Would it have killed her to wait a few days to verify from Hammond the truth? I don't think so, but I guess there's so little to report about in Danville the paper was putting pressure on her to come up with a story--fast! Fill that space!

But then I also realized that so far Amos has been focusing on the debate debate between the two candidates. She can truthfully say that she's been covering the election and the battles between the two candidates. But she's ignored, for over a week now, the demand from Robert Hurt that Tom Perriello announce his position on President Obama's attempt to nullify Arizona's anti-illegal immigrant laws. Amos is silent on a real, substantive issue of disagreement between the two candidates. Robert Hurt, like Virgil Goode, believes that we need to end illegal immigration and take back the jobs that immigrants have stolen from Americans. Tom Perriello welcomes them with open arms. It's that simple.

The Register & Bee has already covered that many farms in the area depend on immigrant labor instead of Americans. I want to know why these farmers are hiring immigrants instead of Americans despite the high unemployment across Southside. Perriello is fighting for cheap labor for farmers that puts Americans out of work. I know that Goode supports an immigration moratorium, which would end these programs like H2A that bring in cheap immigrant labor to take jobs away from Americans. I'm sure Robert Hurt does as well. The Register & Bee is silent on this issue because the don't want to hurt Perriello's reelection. For shame!

I also want to know where Jeff Clark, the "conservative" candidate in this race, stands on ending immigration. If Hurt is going to win he is going to need to show that he's as conservative, if not more conservative, than Clark. Does Clark support Goode's immigration moratorium? Why hasn't Amos asked these questions, instead of focusing on this silly debate debate?

Yes, Robert Hurt Knows What He's Doing . . .

Through my use of Google Alerts I've been paying close attention to the on going "stealth campaign" of the Robert Hurt/Chris LaCivita campaign. Although Perriello has been actively campaigning, raising money, and touring the district, Hurt has also produced a steady stream of letters to the editor popping up across the 5th and has started to wage a campaign against Jeff Clark. Today, I noticed the concern of some Republicans that Hurt's decision to highlight the recent Arizona immigration law may backfire on him.

I can talk about this debate from my knowledge of history and the Scots-Irish experience in Virginia, but it mainly comes down to economics. There are a lot of tobacco farmers in Virginia that are coming under intense pricing pressure and have become reliant on immigrant labor in the past few years. I'm also seeing more farmers growing burley tobacco which brings a higher profit, but is more labor intensive even for innovative farmers in Southside Virginia.

There has also been a sharp decline in native born young people willing to do this work in the Southside region of Virginia. The economic pressure on farmers can make many change their vote right after harvest.

This could have a huge blowback effect in November. Just like it was for Virgil Goode in 2008. I was really hoping that my party would come to its senses on this issue in 2010.

Mike wants to see a Republican stand up to call for comprehensive immigration reform, like libertarian Jeff Flake of Arizona is advocating. I'll remind him that we all know what that is code for: amnesty. Perriello ran on amnesty in 2008 and still supports comprehensive immigration reform--which is just another way of saying amnesty. There is one and only one solution to this crisis, which is to treat this with the same threat and seriousness as the War on Terror or the War on Drugs. We need to turn the Mexican border into our version of the Berlin Wall to keep everyone out. Virgil Goode knows this and it seems that Robert Hurt is finally on board. This is the best move made by the Hurt campaign so far. They know exactly what to do!

Will Register & Bee Call for Ending Unemployment Benefits for Danville?

Just a few days ago the Danville Register & Bee wrote a selfish editorial outlining their stance on extending unemployment benefits during the Obama-recession: we want ours, don't give it to anyone else! The editorial board drew a line in the sand and boldly said that some localities that were struggling deserved extended unemployment benefits, but not localities where the economy has started to rebound.

With all we know about labor markets in this country, can’t we come up with a solution that helps people where they need help — and pushes them off the dole when their local economy is strong support them?

Like Robert Hurt, my heart goes out to those unemployed workers who can't find a job because of the failures of President Obama and the Democrat Congress. It's not fair to punish them for the job-destroying agenda coming out of Washington. But as a good conservative I also oppose welfare programs that discourage workers from finding a job. That's why I've decided to agree with the Register & Bee. Once a locality shows job growth their unemployment benefits should be cut.

So will the Register & Bee now join me in calling for unemployment benefits to be cut for Danville and Pittsylvania?

Of the twenty-two localities in the great 5th District of Virginia, all but FIVE have higher unemployment rates than when President Obama was sworn into office in January, 2009. Two of the exceptions are Danville and Pittsylvania. That's right. The area that the Register & Bee covers is at lower unemployment rate than when Obama started destroying our economy with taxes and debt. This just shows how strong and resilient the hard working folks in Danville are. Since they have a recovering economy, shouldn't the Register & Bee do the right thing and call for kicking off the dole the lazy bums who refuse to go out and get a job?

Trying to Offend More People

Recently, I've been criticized for doing too much to defend Perriello and coming across as a Perriello-Pelosi apologist. Well, my goal in this post is to try to insult and offend as many people as possible. I'm an apologist for no one!!

A reoccurring problem in commentaries on the general election in Virginia's 5th District is that the fine citizens of the district aren't used to competitive House elections and are quick to fall for faulty logic and fallacies. That's understandable, there's a Republican candidate with a slick Beltway campaign team trying to use smoke and mirrors to hide from the truth, a generally incompetent and failing media unable to provide facts to keep the debate grounded in reality, and a hard working yet unapologetic liberal Democrat that's the biggest threat the GOP in this district has ever seen. The combination has produced a pile of horse manure rather than actual commentary that could help the average citizen find the truth.

Let's start off with the "debate over debates." I've already covered how Hurt's incompetent campaign let go unchallenged for days Hurt's original statement that he was "absolutely" open to including Jeffrey Clark in the debates. Most of the newspapers in the district (Lynchburg, Charlottesville) have stepped up to state the obvious: Clark is a candidate and should be included in the debate. But no one has brought up yet the hypocrisy of Hurt's handlers. Just see what they are doing in the 2nd District:

Rigell, who is seeking Virginia’s 2nd District seat, had been invited to speak at Freedom Fest, an event that is being produced by a Norfolk-area conservative radio station. But Rigell consultant Chris LaCivita told POLITICO Sunday that the campaign had decided against an onstage appearance out of caution for Federal Election Commission laws.

LaCivita explained that independent candidate Kenny Golden had not been offered equal time at the event. That Rigell’s car dealership, Freedom Ford, is a sponsor of the Palin event was also a concern, said LaCivita. “We like to follow the advice of campaign lawyers,” he said.

In VA-05, LaCivita is arguing that Hurt shouldn't have to debate Jeffrey Clark. In VA-02, LaCivita is arguing that it would be improper for Rigell to appear at an event that didn't also include Kenny Golden, the independent. Ironically, Tommy's BFF Glenn Nye is running scared in his reelection and doing everything possible to dodge debates and other public events. In fact, given his strange libertarian/populist views, I think Kenny Golden would be a better candidate for liberals to support than Glenn Nye himself. Or maybe the liberals will just write in Tom Perriello. Anyone but Nye!!

The fact that there are many elections this year should help provide prospective in the spin provided the politicians and their handlers. Following Glenn Nye's flip-flopping, waffling, and cowardice has provided me with the perspective to respect Tom Perriello as a hard working politician . . . who's agenda is to destroy America. I firmly believe Glenn Nye also wants to destroy America, but I just can't respect a man who doesn't work hard for what he believes in.

This is a classic example of Glenn Nye's constituent services:



My recent post on Perriello Derangement Syndrome was criticized by those who couldn't understand the fact that I can see Perriello for what he is, a liberal who would turn America into a European style welfare state that cowers in the face of Islamo-terrorists and China, while respecting him as an individual and even appreciating the issues where we agree.

Watching other elections, especially Glenn Nye's desperate attempt to stay in power, would be a good cure for Perriello Derangement Syndrome. So when Perriello holds town hall after town hall and tries to talk to people, Hurtards would realize that he's going above and beyond anything that Virgil Goode ever did and he's setting an example that almost no other member of Congress has lived up to. When Perriello votes with the liberal agenda of Obama and Pelosi, Hurtards would realize that he campaigned as a liberal Democrat in 2008 and still won! He's just doing what he was elected to do, which is more than I can say about Glenn Nye.

The problem with Hurtards is they still think that Perriello is just a young New York carpet bagger who is a Pelosi lap dog. They need to read my post explaining that Perriello is a Manchurian candidate with his own independent power base. Nancy Pelosi did not recruit Perriello to run and she did almost nothing to help his campaign. Perriello was recruited and funded by George Soros and his Shadow Party of liberal extremists united by one goal: weakening America's military might and strength in the world.

Pelosi has no control over Perriello. Perriello is his own rouge agent, his own terrorist cell, entirely independent of Pelosi. Which is what makes him so dangerous. He's going to do whatever he thinks is right, not what Pelosi tells him to do. Yeah, Perriello and Pelosi are both liberal extremists trying to destroy America. But that doesn't mean Pelosi calls the shots. They are just two extremists drinking the same Kool Aid.

This means that Perriello can, at times, side with conservatives and it's not because Pelosi "let him." It's because as a lone wolf he's got some independent views of his own. In the big picture he supports the agenda of George Soros, but on some day to day issues like guns and abortion he's more conservative. And he's genuinely more conservative. Just this week he voted for auditing the Federal Reserve, against Wall Street regulations, and against the Democrat budget. I think he did this because he's more conservative on a host of issues not directly tied to the agenda of weakening America's military might. During the same week he also voted for retreat from Afghanistan. He's also voted to allow the radical homosexual agenda infiltrate our military. That's good news for Glenn Nye, he'll have a career opening after his defeat this fall.

Perriello isn't the only Manchurian candidate in Congress right now. I recently read this old profile of openly homosexual Congressman Jared Polis of Colorado. Polis is independently wealthy and hell-bent on destroying America's traditional values. He's bought off most of Colorado's politicians with his generous contributions and finally purchased a Congressional seal. He's not your traditional Democrat, all he cares about is advancing his radical agenda of destroying American families. So he actually has some conservative views on education and unions! Perriello is the same way. He's focused on foreign policy issues that the Fifth District has a hard time following. But it's where he is most dangerous.

Why hasn't Perriello's radical vision for a world dominated by the European Union and China received more attention in this race? I blame Hurt's campaign, but I can also see this being an issue closer to the election. But I also blame a media in the district. Did you know that Perriello voted for retreat in Afghanistan this week? You wouldn't if you only read the various Media General News services in the district.

Declining circulation is hitting the newspaper hard nationally, but particularly hard in rural Virginia. People have to be fired and more and more newspapers are trying to cover things with fewer, and less qualified, reporters. I've been tracking just how often the newspapers publish erroneous letters to the editor and have consistently found examples. Just this week the Danville Register and Bee published a letter claiming that Perriello had voted against extending the Bush tax cuts, despite the fact that no such vote exists.

I've also noticed the growing hypocrisy of the Danville paper in their coverage of the Tea Party. Catherine Amos seems to be phoning in her work at the paper. I guess she's trying to get the hell out of Danville as soon as possible, like the last reporter to cover Perriello. In her recent article on Perriello's vote on Wall Street regulations she quoted both Hurt's campaign and the Danville Tea Party, two groups opposed to Perriello in the story. Why is the Danville paper covering the local Tea Party in stories about the election, while claiming that the independent candidate shouldn't be heard in a debate? The paper lavished attention on the Tea Party during the primary. Did anyone complain when Ron Ferrin was included in the debates?

So I've attached Perriello, Hurt, Hurtards, and the media. Is everyone happy now that I'm just angry at everyone? Good!

Memo to Hurtards: Please STOP!

Back in 2007 and 2008, a blogger had to be pretty brave to say anything about Ron Paul, especially anything negative. Just a reference to the long-shot Presidential candidate could bring hordes of his loving, adoring zombie fans to your comments. Insult him and you risked a flame war of attacks. We saw the same thing happen with the "Deaniacs" in 2004. And don't get me started on the messiah-like worship of Obama by some of his supporters.

In 2010 there's a new zombie out there online. The Hurtard.

The Hurtard seems to be your normal run of the mill Republican, but he suffers from what is known as PDS or Perriello Derangement Syndrome. At the mere mention of Tom Perriello, the Hurtard goes into a fit of rage full of spasms, convulsions, and seizures. It's not a pretty sight. The Hurtard cannot accept at face value anything that Perriello does. They are also driven by a hunger for brains, which they consume constantly in hopes that they'll replace the brain they seem to have lost.

Here's some examples of how this plays out.

Scenario 1- SOCIALIST!

Action- Tom Perriello votes in a way the Hurtard doesn't like.
Result- Hurtard accuses Perriello of being a socialist, because anyone who disagrees with the Hurtard is a socialist. Also, the Hurtard will probably try to kill Perriello and/or his family. Because the Hurtard can't tell the difference. (See entry "Coleman, Nigel")

Scenario 2- LIE.

Action- Tom Perriello votes in a way that the Hurtard agrees with.
Result- Hurtard lies and claims that Perriello voted the other way, because when Tucker Watkins has been accusing him of being a secret New York lawyer for two years it doesn't matter what the truth is. (See entry "2008 Campaign Meltdown")

Scenario 3- HE LIES!

Action- Tom Perriello votes in a way that the Hurtard agrees with.
Result- Accuse him of "election year" politics, regardless of the fact that he's taken several high profile votes already. Because you can never, ever praise Perriello. (See entry "Harrison, Sean 'Puffy'")

In the last few months, I've had to correct Hurtards several times about Perriello's voting record, ranging from guns to Puerto Rico to Wall Street regulations. Just this week I had Hurtards claiming Perriello had voted for the Wall Street regulations bill. And in the local media, the Hurtards were forced to accept reality and come up with reasons to criticize Perriello despite his good vote.

Rather than praising his support, Danville Tea Party vice chairman, Darriel Burnett, saw Perriello’s vote as pandering to 5th District conservatives before he faces GOP challenger state Sen. Robert Hurt in November.

“He’s doing these things to garner favor from the conservatives,” Burnett said. “If he was concerned, he would have voted against the tax bill — cap and trade — and he would have voted against the stimulus. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a little too late, and a little too little.”

Hurt’s campaign manager, Sean Harrison, said Hurt would have voted the same way Perriello did.

“It’s clear however,” Harrison said, “that Tom Perriello is in the process of having an election year conversion — but occasional ‘bouts’ of common sense can’t distract from his liberal record.”

So let's get this straight. The Danville Tea Party won't praise Perriello on a signature vote and cause for Ron Paul and his efforts to audit the Federal Reserve, because they think he's just pandering to conservatives. And they try to link it, somehow, to cap and tax and the stimulus.

Perriello: I'm hungry, do you want to order Chinese food?

Hurtard: If you were really hungry, you wouldn't have gotten your shirt dirty!

Perriello: What?

Hurtard: BRAINS!

It makes about as much sense.

And Hurt's campaign manager accused Perriello of an election year conversion despite the fact that Perriello first cosponsored Ron Paul's audit the Fed legislation last year and voted against the Wall Street regulations last year as well. Perriello has been consistent on this issue from the start, something the Hurtards should give him credit for.

Here's a suggestion for the Hurtards. You don't have to attack Perriello on every vote. It makes you look silly. Attack him on the votes you disagree with him on, but do so reasonably and with respect. And if he votes the way you like, just move on.

Ron Paul's Democratic Allies

Last night, the House of Representatives defeated an attempt by the Republicans to add Congressman Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill to the Wall Street "reform" bill that was being debated. All of the Republicans united in this valiant but failed effort. Twenty-three Democrats also joined the effort, just short of two dozen. I'm listing all of these Democrats as I think they deserve special praise from Tea Partiers everywhere. I am an independent conservative and don't agree with Republicans all of the time, so I certainly don't agree with Democrats most of the time. But I am able to recognize an ally when I see one.

Boucher (Virginia)
Carney (Pennsylvania)
Childers (Mississippi)
Critz (Pennsylvania)
Edwards (Texas)
Giffords (Arizona)
Grayson (Florida)
Hodes (New Hampshire)
Kirkpatrick (Arizona)
Kratovil (Maryland)
Lipinski (Illinois)
Markey (Colorado)
McIntyre (North Carolina)
McNerney (California)
Minnick (Idaho)
Mitchell (Arizona)
Nye (Virginia)
Perriello (Virginia)
Ross (Arkansas)
Skelton (Missouri)
Space (Ohio)
Teague (New Mexico)
Titus (Nevada)

Thanks for your help guys (and gals)! We'll get them next time.