Mike Huckabee rode his wave of momentum into Roanoke last night. And there was an energy level in the room that gives me the feeling that Mike is going to do very well in Southwest Virginia and possibly the entire State in today’s primary.
Mike Huckabee is a phenomenal speaker. And he knows how to work a large crowd. He had the 500+ supporters screaming and cheering. It’s not hard to imagine him on the pulpit preaching to the faithful. Like most successful preachers, Mike has a way of connecting with each and every person in the room. That skill translates well into the political world.
But as good as Mike was, he couldn’t quite make up for such a terrible location. The Link Museum is just not a place to hold a rally for 500 people. It was cramped and you couldn’t see well. I saw clips of Bill Clinton’s rally at Patrick Henry High School in Roanoke. The contrast was stark. He had a great set up on an elevated stage. The visuals worked perfectly.
As much as I like Huck, I have been disappointed in his campaign’s level of organization. As most of you know, Debbie and I have been working with the campaign since December. But we haven’t had any contact with the campaign over the past few weeks. I had spoken with a staffer last month about helping Mike in Virginia, but never received any direction as to what I could do. A bit disappointing to say the least.
I want to make one more observation about last night. I noticed a lot of the “conservative base” in attendance. These were the same folks that supported Fred Thompson. Then Mitt Romney. And now Huckabee. They are just moving from candidate to candidate, driven by the “Anyone But McCain” mentality. I am glad to have them on board, but I am a bit leery of their last minute support. Then again, these are folks that supported me for years, only to find greener pastures during last year’s primary. I’ll make a note to warn Mike.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Join Me in Supporting Conservative Mike Huckabee on Tuesday
Tuesday is Election Day in Virginia and I hope you will join me in supporting Conservative Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. I have been on board with Huck since late last year and am thrilled to see that he is still in this race.
With multiple wins last weekend, Mike is proving that he is the Conservative choice in this race and another win in Virginia will only increase his momentum.
Polls show McCain with a significant lead, but I feel certain this race is much closer. Independents will likely vote in the Democratic primary, meaning they won’t be voting for McCain. This scenario favors Huckabee.
And if you live in Southwest Virginia, join me tonight at 7pm at the Link Museum in Downtown Roanoke as Mike holds a pre-election rally. It should be a high energy event!
With multiple wins last weekend, Mike is proving that he is the Conservative choice in this race and another win in Virginia will only increase his momentum.
Polls show McCain with a significant lead, but I feel certain this race is much closer. Independents will likely vote in the Democratic primary, meaning they won’t be voting for McCain. This scenario favors Huckabee.
And if you live in Southwest Virginia, join me tonight at 7pm at the Link Museum in Downtown Roanoke as Mike holds a pre-election rally. It should be a high energy event!
Candidates Return from the Political Graveyard and the Shortest Congressional Campaign in History – All in Roanoke City!
This past Saturday, Roanoke City Democrats nominated three candidates for City Council. I am still trying to make sense of the results. Political newcomers Court Rosen and Anita Price were nominated. At 29, I think Rosen was able to tap into the growing block of young professionals who are becoming increasingly active in City politics. I don’t know enough about Price to determine how she was victorious. Surprising to me was the loss of incumbent Bev Fitzpatrick and the victory of fellow incumbent Sherman Lea. Fitzpatrick has been part of the progressive majority on Council, while Lea has been a consistent obstructionist, aligning himself with Brian Wishneff.
And most surprising was the loss of Rich Cranwell. That’s right, the son of the Democratic State Party Chair came in fourth place. It was often joked that this was really the beginning of Rich’s run for Congress. I’d say this was actually the end. I know Bob Goodlatte will sleep a bit easier at night.
But the Democratic candidates are not finished. It’s well known that a slate of independent candidates will be running in the May election. Everyone has an opinion of who that might be. David Bowers, Granger McFarlane, Stuart Revercomb, Alice Hincker and Mac McCadden have all been rumored to be running. Can anyone guess how many collective political loses this group of people has between them? Don’t try—it can be a bit overwhelming. It used to be that Democrats went to the local graveyard to “dig up” votes. Now it seems we are going to the political graveyard for actual candidates.
And most surprising was the loss of Rich Cranwell. That’s right, the son of the Democratic State Party Chair came in fourth place. It was often joked that this was really the beginning of Rich’s run for Congress. I’d say this was actually the end. I know Bob Goodlatte will sleep a bit easier at night.
But the Democratic candidates are not finished. It’s well known that a slate of independent candidates will be running in the May election. Everyone has an opinion of who that might be. David Bowers, Granger McFarlane, Stuart Revercomb, Alice Hincker and Mac McCadden have all been rumored to be running. Can anyone guess how many collective political loses this group of people has between them? Don’t try—it can be a bit overwhelming. It used to be that Democrats went to the local graveyard to “dig up” votes. Now it seems we are going to the political graveyard for actual candidates.
Friday, February 8, 2008
House Continues To Ignore Majority Views on Smoking Ban
As expected, the House General Laws Subcommittee defeated all 8 House bills that would have regulated smoking in public. I am not surprised by the vote. But I am dismayed that House members, including Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, can be so confident in their position of political power, that they would continue to ignore the views of the vast majority of Virginian’s on this issue.
At the very least, this issue should come before the entire General Laws Committee. It is outrageous and a disservice to the citizens of this Commonwealth to prevent a fair hearing of these bills. But the voters may have the last laugh. They want this legislation and they will eventually elect legislators that will give it to them. That’s the beauty of our system.
Not only did the Subcommittee block the bills from a full hearing, the Chairman didn’t even play fair. Each side was given 30 minutes to speak. The tobacco lobby got their full 30 minutes. But the Smoke-Free coalition had half that time. The time used by the bill patrons to present was counted against the Smoke-Free coalition. This is absolutely unheard of. Patrons have to present their bills. Then you let the various individuals and groups speak for or against. This is the same type of dirty tricks used by Dickie Cranwell and the Democrats for years. And it was part of the reason they lost their Majority. The voters get tired of this stuff.
I’ve also gotten wind that Majority Leader Griffith is telling his colleagues in the House Republican Caucus that I lost my primary fight because of my support of Smoke-Free legislation. The subtle message is, you better vote against this, or you’ll be the next one to lose in a primary. He knows full well this is absolutely not true. This issue is supported by the majority of Republicans! In his attempt to keep his Indians in line, Griffith should be worried about how tight those wagons are circled. For him and our GOP House Majority, I hope this isn’t a last stand.
At the very least, this issue should come before the entire General Laws Committee. It is outrageous and a disservice to the citizens of this Commonwealth to prevent a fair hearing of these bills. But the voters may have the last laugh. They want this legislation and they will eventually elect legislators that will give it to them. That’s the beauty of our system.
Not only did the Subcommittee block the bills from a full hearing, the Chairman didn’t even play fair. Each side was given 30 minutes to speak. The tobacco lobby got their full 30 minutes. But the Smoke-Free coalition had half that time. The time used by the bill patrons to present was counted against the Smoke-Free coalition. This is absolutely unheard of. Patrons have to present their bills. Then you let the various individuals and groups speak for or against. This is the same type of dirty tricks used by Dickie Cranwell and the Democrats for years. And it was part of the reason they lost their Majority. The voters get tired of this stuff.
I’ve also gotten wind that Majority Leader Griffith is telling his colleagues in the House Republican Caucus that I lost my primary fight because of my support of Smoke-Free legislation. The subtle message is, you better vote against this, or you’ll be the next one to lose in a primary. He knows full well this is absolutely not true. This issue is supported by the majority of Republicans! In his attempt to keep his Indians in line, Griffith should be worried about how tight those wagons are circled. For him and our GOP House Majority, I hope this isn’t a last stand.
A Conservative’s Conservative?
They couldn’t be talking about Mitt Romney. But to my dismay, they were. I got a good laugh when talk show host Laura Ingraham introduced Romney in this way at CPAC on Thursday. The Right’s new found love affair with the former Massachusetts Governor seems a bit fake to me. Maybe that’s because Romney was running for President for a long time and he never had the support of these very same Conservatives. At least he didn’t until the last few weeks.
The Right has been waiting for the illusive “perfect” candidate. It shouldn’t be a surprise that such a candidate does not exist. I think most people realize this, but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum have a hard time accepting this fact. Fred Thompson was the “perfect” candidate. Until everyone realized he was really just a bad candidate.
Once the Right realized that John McCain was well on his way to the nomination, Romney was quickly crowned as “the only true Conserative in the race”. Limbaugh, Hannity and others became his biggest cheerleaders and began their assault on McCain. It was too little too late. I think many Republicans were left wondering why they hadn’t supported Romney before. Most knew it was because Romney was as big a flip flopper as John Kerry and they weren’t buying his newly minted Conservative crown.
John McCain is more Republican than Conservative. Sure, he has some Conservative positions. He’s committed to the War on Terror. He hates wasteful government spending. He’s pro-life. But he’s also taken some mainstream, and dare I say it, “moderate” positions. He believes in the American dream and hasn’t bought into the “immigrant hate” that has stained the Right—meaning he can win the Hispanic vote. His pro-environment positions and stance against deficit spending contribute to his appeal among independent voters. In short, McCain can win a General election. That’s why, to the utter dismay of the Conservative Right, he will be the Republican nominee.
The Right has been waiting for the illusive “perfect” candidate. It shouldn’t be a surprise that such a candidate does not exist. I think most people realize this, but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum have a hard time accepting this fact. Fred Thompson was the “perfect” candidate. Until everyone realized he was really just a bad candidate.
Once the Right realized that John McCain was well on his way to the nomination, Romney was quickly crowned as “the only true Conserative in the race”. Limbaugh, Hannity and others became his biggest cheerleaders and began their assault on McCain. It was too little too late. I think many Republicans were left wondering why they hadn’t supported Romney before. Most knew it was because Romney was as big a flip flopper as John Kerry and they weren’t buying his newly minted Conservative crown.
John McCain is more Republican than Conservative. Sure, he has some Conservative positions. He’s committed to the War on Terror. He hates wasteful government spending. He’s pro-life. But he’s also taken some mainstream, and dare I say it, “moderate” positions. He believes in the American dream and hasn’t bought into the “immigrant hate” that has stained the Right—meaning he can win the Hispanic vote. His pro-environment positions and stance against deficit spending contribute to his appeal among independent voters. In short, McCain can win a General election. That’s why, to the utter dismay of the Conservative Right, he will be the Republican nominee.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Will the McCain-Huckabee Ticket Begin Today?
Romney is out. McCain is the front runner and now presumptive nominee. Huckabee is still in, but for how long is hard to tell. I would personally like to see Huck and McCain in a two way race, at least through the next couple of primaries, including Virginia on February 12th. I would like to know if Huckabee can capture the core Conservative vote that has eluded McCain. If so, I think he could win a few more states. Not enough to capture the nomination, but enough to absolutely prove his viability as a running mate.
But I am not certain that Huck will have the money to stick around. There will also be intense pressure from McCain and party leaders to drop out and coalesce behind the nominee. As cordial as these two men have been over the last few weeks, I have to think there is a back channel conversation happening right now for Huck to drop out. McCain would then declare himself the nominee and offer the VP spot to his formal rival.
As a Huckabee supporter in Virginia, I have not heard the first thing about the campaign’s activities in our State. I would have expected to at least hear something. But it hasn’t started yet. That makes me think a deal is being made.
I think Huckabee has a lot of bargaining power right now. He has a handful of Delegates. And more importantly, he’s proved his strength in the South, something McCain will need in the General election if he wants to win. He can also end the Republican nomination fight and allow the GOP ticket to begin it’s nationwide campaign. That in the backdrop of the continued Clinton-Obama political bloodbath.
On a side note, McCain securing the nomination in a matter of days instead of weeks may have a dramatic impact on the Democrat process. With no real contest on the Republican side, Independent voters will move to the Democratic primaries and likely support Obama. A McCain win now may lead to an Obama win down the road.
But I am not certain that Huck will have the money to stick around. There will also be intense pressure from McCain and party leaders to drop out and coalesce behind the nominee. As cordial as these two men have been over the last few weeks, I have to think there is a back channel conversation happening right now for Huck to drop out. McCain would then declare himself the nominee and offer the VP spot to his formal rival.
As a Huckabee supporter in Virginia, I have not heard the first thing about the campaign’s activities in our State. I would have expected to at least hear something. But it hasn’t started yet. That makes me think a deal is being made.
I think Huckabee has a lot of bargaining power right now. He has a handful of Delegates. And more importantly, he’s proved his strength in the South, something McCain will need in the General election if he wants to win. He can also end the Republican nomination fight and allow the GOP ticket to begin it’s nationwide campaign. That in the backdrop of the continued Clinton-Obama political bloodbath.
On a side note, McCain securing the nomination in a matter of days instead of weeks may have a dramatic impact on the Democrat process. With no real contest on the Republican side, Independent voters will move to the Democratic primaries and likely support Obama. A McCain win now may lead to an Obama win down the road.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Be Careful What You Wish For
Clinton or Obama? That is the other question (the first being the identity of our nominee) for the Republican Party. Who do we want to face in November? The conservative talking heads are giddy at the thought of a Clinton loss—and it’s these folks who have been predicting the Clinton demise ever since Iowa. These predictions are based less in fact and more in wishful thinking. And I think Clinton’s continued strength proves this.
But can Obama finally take out the Clinton machine? Can he do something that the GOP has been trying to do since the 90’s? More importantly, do we really want him to?
I get the feeling, and other Republicans have it as well, that if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, he may very well be the next President of the United States. He will be the only “change candidate” in a change year. The GOP doesn’t really have a true change candidate--except maybe Ron Paul.
I feel much better about our chances against Hillary. We can beat her. She is the establishment candidate. She has negatives approaching 50%; numbers that make Jim Gilmore look good. Hillary will inherit her husband’s dirty laundry. Bill Clinton is no longer the rock star he was before he began his smear campaign against Obama. This primary has tarnished the Clinton brand. If she wins, she will be much weaker than anyone ever expected.
I know Republicans love the idea of a Clinton loss—payback for all the times they beat us. But her defeat of Obama may be the best thing for our party. We better be careful of what we wish for. And start worrying if these two stop beating each other up and join forces.
But can Obama finally take out the Clinton machine? Can he do something that the GOP has been trying to do since the 90’s? More importantly, do we really want him to?
I get the feeling, and other Republicans have it as well, that if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, he may very well be the next President of the United States. He will be the only “change candidate” in a change year. The GOP doesn’t really have a true change candidate--except maybe Ron Paul.
I feel much better about our chances against Hillary. We can beat her. She is the establishment candidate. She has negatives approaching 50%; numbers that make Jim Gilmore look good. Hillary will inherit her husband’s dirty laundry. Bill Clinton is no longer the rock star he was before he began his smear campaign against Obama. This primary has tarnished the Clinton brand. If she wins, she will be much weaker than anyone ever expected.
I know Republicans love the idea of a Clinton loss—payback for all the times they beat us. But her defeat of Obama may be the best thing for our party. We better be careful of what we wish for. And start worrying if these two stop beating each other up and join forces.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Smoking Ban Gains Momentum
Today, the Virginia Senate passed three different bills to ban smoking in public, each at a different level of restriction.
A complete workplace ban passed 23-15-1. A Restaurant only ban passed 28-10-1. And a local option ban passed 29-9-1. These numbers suggest serious momentum and are surprisingly in line with the opinion of the electorate. Recent polling suggests that 75% of Virginian’s want some type of smoking ban. Kudos to the State Senate for siding with the vast majority of voters. What’s even more impressive is the bi-partisan vote. I’ve been saying for years that this was not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a public health issue that the voters want addressed.
One particular vote caught my eye. Democrat Senator and Gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds voted against the ban. Deeds has a spotty record on this issue, having voted against it, then voting for it and now back to voting against it. My guess is the hospitality industry, which has been equally fickle, put some pressure on him. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that opposing the ban is not a smart political position for someone running statewide in 2009. The ban is supported by the majority of Republicans and the overwhelming majority of Democrats. This could be Deeds' Achilles’ heel.
A complete workplace ban passed 23-15-1. A Restaurant only ban passed 28-10-1. And a local option ban passed 29-9-1. These numbers suggest serious momentum and are surprisingly in line with the opinion of the electorate. Recent polling suggests that 75% of Virginian’s want some type of smoking ban. Kudos to the State Senate for siding with the vast majority of voters. What’s even more impressive is the bi-partisan vote. I’ve been saying for years that this was not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a public health issue that the voters want addressed.
One particular vote caught my eye. Democrat Senator and Gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds voted against the ban. Deeds has a spotty record on this issue, having voted against it, then voting for it and now back to voting against it. My guess is the hospitality industry, which has been equally fickle, put some pressure on him. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that opposing the ban is not a smart political position for someone running statewide in 2009. The ban is supported by the majority of Republicans and the overwhelming majority of Democrats. This could be Deeds' Achilles’ heel.
Monday, February 4, 2008
A Proud Dad!
As you may know, I was born in Virginia, but grew up in Mississippi. When I was 9 or 10 years old, my all time hero was Archie Manning, quarterback at Ole Miss. He was a true legend in the State. I had every newspaper clipping and even an “Archie Who” button made popular after his big victory over Tennessee as a junior. For such a great quarterback and person, it was always frustrating when he was left to languish in the New Orleans Saints organization. He was never able to realize his full potential in the NFL.
Then came his sons Peyton and Eli. For years the rumors would roll out about the two up and coming Manning quarterbacks growing up. Congratulations to Archie for raising two exceptional young men. No family in football is more deserving of this success. To have Peyton and Eli win back to back MVPs of the Superbowl is absolutely fantastic.
While last night was great, I got a chill when Eli avoided a sack with one minute left in the game, only to complete a long pass putting the Giants in range to win the game. It was like watching his Dad 40 years ago scramble to make plays and excite the fans.
Congratulations Archie!
Then came his sons Peyton and Eli. For years the rumors would roll out about the two up and coming Manning quarterbacks growing up. Congratulations to Archie for raising two exceptional young men. No family in football is more deserving of this success. To have Peyton and Eli win back to back MVPs of the Superbowl is absolutely fantastic.
While last night was great, I got a chill when Eli avoided a sack with one minute left in the game, only to complete a long pass putting the Giants in range to win the game. It was like watching his Dad 40 years ago scramble to make plays and excite the fans.
Congratulations Archie!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
McCain is the Front-Runner. But is Huckabee the Kingmaker?
With his Florida win, I believe it’s fair to say John McCain has finally claimed the mantle of Republican front-runner. That being said, I don’t think we will see a complete McCain victory on Super Tuesday. There just isn’t enough time and there are two many states for any candidate to effectively compete in every one. McCain will win some, Romney will win some and Huckabee will win a handful, most likely southern States.
The great unknown is can McCain win in State primaries dominated by conservative Republicans. It can be argued that Republicans have not really given McCain his victories up to this point. Are Republicans ready to forgive his immigration policy or campaign finance reform? I think some are. But I am not sure enough of them are. Romney does seem to be gaining traction among the conservative base, especially here in Virginia.
So where does that leave Mike Huckabee? I think Huckabee is now the kingmaker, in one of two ways. Either McCain or Romney could cut a deal with Huckabee now, where he drops out of the race, they announce him as their VP and they start actively campaigning as a ticket. Unconventional, I know, but it just might work. And whoever cuts the deal secures Huck’s evangelical base of supporters. Which in a close race, may be enough to win.
The second scenario has McCain and Romney going all the way to the Convention with neither candidate at 50%. In this case, Huckabee would probably have enough Delegates to put one or the other over the top. And in doing so, secure his place on the ticket.
The great unknown is can McCain win in State primaries dominated by conservative Republicans. It can be argued that Republicans have not really given McCain his victories up to this point. Are Republicans ready to forgive his immigration policy or campaign finance reform? I think some are. But I am not sure enough of them are. Romney does seem to be gaining traction among the conservative base, especially here in Virginia.
So where does that leave Mike Huckabee? I think Huckabee is now the kingmaker, in one of two ways. Either McCain or Romney could cut a deal with Huckabee now, where he drops out of the race, they announce him as their VP and they start actively campaigning as a ticket. Unconventional, I know, but it just might work. And whoever cuts the deal secures Huck’s evangelical base of supporters. Which in a close race, may be enough to win.
The second scenario has McCain and Romney going all the way to the Convention with neither candidate at 50%. In this case, Huckabee would probably have enough Delegates to put one or the other over the top. And in doing so, secure his place on the ticket.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The State of the Union
After listening to the State of the Union last night, it’s no wonder to me Republicans are frustrated with our Party's leader. Sure, President Bush has done some things we can be proud of. The tax cuts come to mind--although wouldn’t it have been nice for him to have cut spending by the same amount. I know, I know, that’s crazy talk. The fact that we haven’t had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 is another achievement. But two things he spoke about last night really rubbed me the wrong way.
This whole idea of a “stimulus” package just runs me crazy. What sense does it make for the Federal Government to borrow $150 billion in order to give a few hundred bucks back to the citizens? Wasn’t this entire credit crisis created by folks who were irresponsible with debt in the first place? So to fix it, the Federal Government is going to continue the irresponsibility. If you really think that John Doe receiving $600 is going to make or break this economy, fine, but why don’t they cut $150 billion in spending and then refund the difference to the taxpayers? You and I both know they won’t do that because the Congress and our President have the best of both worlds. They can cut taxes and increase spending. That way everyone is happy. At least until the debt service becomes crippling.
All this stimulus talk is short sighted. What the President and Congress should be talking about is making the tax cuts permanent and reining in the deficit. Those are the two best things they can do right now to ensure solid footing for our economy in the years to come.
Bush also talked about No Child Left Behind. This is one program that needs to be left to die and never mentioned again. The Federal Government has no business running our education system. The States, with Virginia as a leader, were doing a fine job. Virginia had a great SOL system in place. No Child Left Behind has been a nightmare for the States and for the local schools. Many schools are now declining the federal money so they don’t have deal with the strings. They are finding that flexibility and freedom are worth more to them than the money.
This whole idea of a “stimulus” package just runs me crazy. What sense does it make for the Federal Government to borrow $150 billion in order to give a few hundred bucks back to the citizens? Wasn’t this entire credit crisis created by folks who were irresponsible with debt in the first place? So to fix it, the Federal Government is going to continue the irresponsibility. If you really think that John Doe receiving $600 is going to make or break this economy, fine, but why don’t they cut $150 billion in spending and then refund the difference to the taxpayers? You and I both know they won’t do that because the Congress and our President have the best of both worlds. They can cut taxes and increase spending. That way everyone is happy. At least until the debt service becomes crippling.
All this stimulus talk is short sighted. What the President and Congress should be talking about is making the tax cuts permanent and reining in the deficit. Those are the two best things they can do right now to ensure solid footing for our economy in the years to come.
Bush also talked about No Child Left Behind. This is one program that needs to be left to die and never mentioned again. The Federal Government has no business running our education system. The States, with Virginia as a leader, were doing a fine job. Virginia had a great SOL system in place. No Child Left Behind has been a nightmare for the States and for the local schools. Many schools are now declining the federal money so they don’t have deal with the strings. They are finding that flexibility and freedom are worth more to them than the money.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
House Repeals Abuser Fees--Without Griffith’s Help
I am sure you’ve read that the House of Delegates voted to repeal the much hated abuser fees. No big surprise there. What was surprising was that my own Delegate, Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, was one of only two Delegates to oppose the repeal. That’s right, just two votes in favor of the fees! Even Dave Albo, who crafted the original legislation, voted for the repeal.
Too often, our elected officials continue to support bad legislation because they don’t want to admit they made a mistake. I admitted my mistake on this issue last summer and called for a Special Session to fix the problem. I, like the vast majority of his constituents, are left scratching our heads and wondering why Griffith would vote in favor of the fees. I have found that most people are willing to forgive mistakes when you own up to them. However, constituents are probably not so forgiving of lawmakers who stubbornly cling to bad policy.
Too often, our elected officials continue to support bad legislation because they don’t want to admit they made a mistake. I admitted my mistake on this issue last summer and called for a Special Session to fix the problem. I, like the vast majority of his constituents, are left scratching our heads and wondering why Griffith would vote in favor of the fees. I have found that most people are willing to forgive mistakes when you own up to them. However, constituents are probably not so forgiving of lawmakers who stubbornly cling to bad policy.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Was 2007 Really All About Taxes?
This blog posting is prompted in part by my most recent dialogue with DJ McGuire over at the Right Wing Liberal. There is a lot of discussion about what wing of the Republican Party is the most “unsatisfied”. Or, what group of Republicans were the catalysts for the 2007 primary fights. As a side note, I suppose you could argue that nearly everyone in the Republican Party is at least partly unsatisfied, albeit for many different reasons.
The prevailing school of thought says that the 2007 primaries were about taxes, specifically the tax votes of 2004 and 2006. That was most definitely true in many of the primary challenges, and Emmett Hanger in particular. Many across the State assume that I was challenged and ultimately defeated because of my tax record. But that’s not really the case. Taxes came up in my primary fight—although my opponent fixated on the 2004 increase, which I opposed then and continued to oppose throughout my tenure, saying that I voted against it but I was secretly for it. Yes, that is as stupid as it sounds. He largely ignored the 2006 vote on transportation, which I did vote for. That may have been a wise decision as my internal polling of likely Republican primary voters suggested that taxes were not as much of a concern as illegal immigration and social issues.
My primary was ultimately about my social voting record. That’s hard to believe, isn’t it? I had a Family Foundation rating of over 90%. The Virginia Conservative Action PAC, who was actively involved in the campaigns against Senators Stosch and Hanger, had no involvement with my opponent. I supported the Marriage Amendment and internet filters at public libraries. I was endorsed by the Virginia Society for Human Life. Reaching another odd and factually inaccurate conclusion, my opponent said that I voted pro-life (which I have consistently done my entire career) but I was really pro-choice. I know, it’s strange logic. But as strange as it may sound, it worked and was one of the reasons I lost my seat.
I hesitated to write this post, as I don’t want you to think I am giving excuses (I have readily taken my share of the blame for my loss) or looking for sympathy. I just want to set the record straight about my primary and what the issues were. This leads me to my next post, which will look at the statewide Republican coalition. Are there really just two wings, fiscal and social, or is there a 3rd wing that many have forgotten about?
The prevailing school of thought says that the 2007 primaries were about taxes, specifically the tax votes of 2004 and 2006. That was most definitely true in many of the primary challenges, and Emmett Hanger in particular. Many across the State assume that I was challenged and ultimately defeated because of my tax record. But that’s not really the case. Taxes came up in my primary fight—although my opponent fixated on the 2004 increase, which I opposed then and continued to oppose throughout my tenure, saying that I voted against it but I was secretly for it. Yes, that is as stupid as it sounds. He largely ignored the 2006 vote on transportation, which I did vote for. That may have been a wise decision as my internal polling of likely Republican primary voters suggested that taxes were not as much of a concern as illegal immigration and social issues.
My primary was ultimately about my social voting record. That’s hard to believe, isn’t it? I had a Family Foundation rating of over 90%. The Virginia Conservative Action PAC, who was actively involved in the campaigns against Senators Stosch and Hanger, had no involvement with my opponent. I supported the Marriage Amendment and internet filters at public libraries. I was endorsed by the Virginia Society for Human Life. Reaching another odd and factually inaccurate conclusion, my opponent said that I voted pro-life (which I have consistently done my entire career) but I was really pro-choice. I know, it’s strange logic. But as strange as it may sound, it worked and was one of the reasons I lost my seat.
I hesitated to write this post, as I don’t want you to think I am giving excuses (I have readily taken my share of the blame for my loss) or looking for sympathy. I just want to set the record straight about my primary and what the issues were. This leads me to my next post, which will look at the statewide Republican coalition. Are there really just two wings, fiscal and social, or is there a 3rd wing that many have forgotten about?
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Case Against Governor Kaine’s Pre-K Program
It may be a new concept to most folks, but I’ve got a long history with the Pre-K program. While I was serving in the Senate during my first term in the early 90’s, I remember a bill coming through that proposed to “study” a Pre-K program for at risk 4 year olds. Oddly enough, the study was shot down by Democrats who felt the program would be too expensive.
I returned to the Senate in 2004 to find that not only had we studied the concept, but we had created the program and were spending millions of dollars to fund it. To make matters worse, the program was ultimately approved by a Republican Governor.
For the second year in a row, Governor Kaine is pushing to expand this program to include all 4 year olds, not just those at risk. The cost over the next two years is projected to be $56 million.
This was one of the key issues I addressed when I gave the Republican response to the Governor’s State of the Commonwealth last year. The same arguments I made against this program last year are still valid today.
The current Pre-K program is plagued with problems. According to the Roanoke Times, schools are having difficulty filling the spots currently available--up to 1/3 are unfilled. Many school districts can’t afford to pay the local match required by the State. Others don’t have enough space for the kids.
Why on earth do we need to expand a program that is clearly not working very well as it is? Why do wealthy parents need a government subsidy to send their kids to pre-school? I can see it now--BMW’s lined up to drop 4 year olds off at a public school--give me a break.
The push to expand this program highlights the single biggest problem with government: once you create a program, it’s almost impossible to get rid of it. Back in the 90’s someone had an idea that at risk 4 year olds needed subsidized pre-school. So we eventually decided to study it. I am sure legislators were told how small this program would be and how it would cost very little to implement. And then we created the program and a new bureaucracy. Now that little idea that we studied 15 years ago is on the verge of becoming a program that will cost the State hundreds of millions of dollars.
Not only is it extremely difficult to get rid of programs like this once you create them, but they get more and more expensive over time. They eventually become a “vital” government service. The key is not letting these programs get started in the first place. The evil here is not all government services, but expanding government where it’s not needed.
I returned to the Senate in 2004 to find that not only had we studied the concept, but we had created the program and were spending millions of dollars to fund it. To make matters worse, the program was ultimately approved by a Republican Governor.
For the second year in a row, Governor Kaine is pushing to expand this program to include all 4 year olds, not just those at risk. The cost over the next two years is projected to be $56 million.
This was one of the key issues I addressed when I gave the Republican response to the Governor’s State of the Commonwealth last year. The same arguments I made against this program last year are still valid today.
The current Pre-K program is plagued with problems. According to the Roanoke Times, schools are having difficulty filling the spots currently available--up to 1/3 are unfilled. Many school districts can’t afford to pay the local match required by the State. Others don’t have enough space for the kids.
Why on earth do we need to expand a program that is clearly not working very well as it is? Why do wealthy parents need a government subsidy to send their kids to pre-school? I can see it now--BMW’s lined up to drop 4 year olds off at a public school--give me a break.
The push to expand this program highlights the single biggest problem with government: once you create a program, it’s almost impossible to get rid of it. Back in the 90’s someone had an idea that at risk 4 year olds needed subsidized pre-school. So we eventually decided to study it. I am sure legislators were told how small this program would be and how it would cost very little to implement. And then we created the program and a new bureaucracy. Now that little idea that we studied 15 years ago is on the verge of becoming a program that will cost the State hundreds of millions of dollars.
Not only is it extremely difficult to get rid of programs like this once you create them, but they get more and more expensive over time. They eventually become a “vital” government service. The key is not letting these programs get started in the first place. The evil here is not all government services, but expanding government where it’s not needed.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Democrats “Stack” Senate Ed and Health Committee
I have said before that one of the most dramatic consequences of the new Democrat Senate majority would be its impact on the Conservative social agenda in the Education and Health Committee. Well, Committee assignments have been announced and not only are the Dems in control of this Committee, they now have a “super majority”. That’s 10 Democrats and only 5 Republicans. There used to be 8 Republicans, including myself, and 7 Democrats.
Some may not realize that there is a long tradition in the Virginia Senate of keeping members on their Committees. In other words, Senate members are never removed from their assigned Committees—even when the balance of power shifts. This is a tradition respected by both parties. Should this tradition live on, and I suspect it will, Democrats could hold a majority on Education and Health for years if not decades to come.
2007 was clearly the high point for the Conservative social agenda in the Virginia Senate. It may not have been high enough for some, but things are going to get remarkably worse. I am again reminded of those in our party that defiantly boasted that a Democrat Senate would be no different than the Republican majority of recent years, and was thus insignificant to our Republican party. I believe that assessment was flat wrong and the new make up of the Education and Health Committee proves it.
Check out the new Committee makeup: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+com+S4
Some may not realize that there is a long tradition in the Virginia Senate of keeping members on their Committees. In other words, Senate members are never removed from their assigned Committees—even when the balance of power shifts. This is a tradition respected by both parties. Should this tradition live on, and I suspect it will, Democrats could hold a majority on Education and Health for years if not decades to come.
2007 was clearly the high point for the Conservative social agenda in the Virginia Senate. It may not have been high enough for some, but things are going to get remarkably worse. I am again reminded of those in our party that defiantly boasted that a Democrat Senate would be no different than the Republican majority of recent years, and was thus insignificant to our Republican party. I believe that assessment was flat wrong and the new make up of the Education and Health Committee proves it.
Check out the new Committee makeup: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+com+S4
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
And Then There Were Two
Ending months (or in some cases over a year) of speculation, George Allen yesterday announced that he will not seek the Governor’s office in 2009. I can’t say that I am surprised. I reported on Roanoke Red Zone last month that George did not have the presence at the Republican Advance of someone running for Statewide office. Knowing where George stands is a good thing for a our party and opens the field for other would be candidates.
It’s no secret that Bob McDonnell is running for Governor, no matter who else is running. Bill Bolling seemed disinclined to run against his political mentor. With Allen out, I would assume Bolling is in. But don’t expect any announcements from the Lt Governor. He’s made it clear that 2008 is about 2008 elections. Not those in 2009.
With Bolling now likely to run for Governor, the field opens up for down ticket races. Up to this point, surprisingly few have expressed interest. Delegate Chris Saxman and former Senator Jay O’Brien are both testing bids for Lt Governor. Senators Mark Obenshain and Ken Cuccinelli, along with Delegate Rob Bell are rumored to be interested in Attorney General.
But just wait--there will soon be “news” everyday of the next person showing interest in running. I expect nearly every Republican member of the House of Delegates will flirt with the idea.
One action by the State Central Committee could be a splash of cold water on the entire process. The Committee could adopt a rule that would allow a losing candidate for Governor to “drop back” and seek the nomination of the office they currently held. I would call on the State Central Committee to immediately state that they will not adopt such a rule. Having this option will only decrease the number and quality of those candidates seeking down ticket offices. Think about it. Why would you seriously consider a run for Attorney General if you knew there was an even chance that the sitting AG would lose his bid for Governor, declare his candidacy for another term as Attorney General at the Convention and win handedly?
It’s no secret that Bob McDonnell is running for Governor, no matter who else is running. Bill Bolling seemed disinclined to run against his political mentor. With Allen out, I would assume Bolling is in. But don’t expect any announcements from the Lt Governor. He’s made it clear that 2008 is about 2008 elections. Not those in 2009.
With Bolling now likely to run for Governor, the field opens up for down ticket races. Up to this point, surprisingly few have expressed interest. Delegate Chris Saxman and former Senator Jay O’Brien are both testing bids for Lt Governor. Senators Mark Obenshain and Ken Cuccinelli, along with Delegate Rob Bell are rumored to be interested in Attorney General.
But just wait--there will soon be “news” everyday of the next person showing interest in running. I expect nearly every Republican member of the House of Delegates will flirt with the idea.
One action by the State Central Committee could be a splash of cold water on the entire process. The Committee could adopt a rule that would allow a losing candidate for Governor to “drop back” and seek the nomination of the office they currently held. I would call on the State Central Committee to immediately state that they will not adopt such a rule. Having this option will only decrease the number and quality of those candidates seeking down ticket offices. Think about it. Why would you seriously consider a run for Attorney General if you knew there was an even chance that the sitting AG would lose his bid for Governor, declare his candidacy for another term as Attorney General at the Convention and win handedly?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Don’t Let the Door Hit You on the Way Out!
Today is my last day as a member of the Virginia Senate. I am not as disappointed as I thought I would be. I know it sounds cliché, but I am starting a new chapter in my life. And that has worked out well in the past. As most of you know, I’ve lost political office before and was better off for it. New opportunities to serve will present themselves and I am ready for the challenges ahead.
I’ve always said that I have learned more from my failures than my successes. This loss is no different. Someone said that never failing means you’re not taking enough risks to succeed and create positive change.
It’s probably unprecedented for an outgoing legislator to examine the details of his loss in such a public forum. But I am going to give it a shot—I kind of like being unconventional.
This assessment of my primary is based solely on numbers. It is not in anyway based on issues. I’ll keep those assessments to myself for now. For those that don’t know, 7,215 votes were cast in my June 2007 primary. I received 3,570 votes--76 votes short of winning. After receiving an updated voter file, we have compared the election data with our internal targets and identified supporters.
Here is a regional vote breakdown and turnout percentage.
Radford City: Bell - 134, Smith - 43, Turnout - 2.5%
Montgomery County: Bell - 350, Smith - 178, Turnout - 2.3%
Salem City: Bell - 570, Smith - 463, Turnout - 6.7%
Roanoke County: Bell - 1825, Smith - 1916, Turnout - 6.9%
Botetourt County: Bell - 691, Smith - 1045, Turnout - 8%
Total: Bell - 3570, Smith - 3645, Turnout - 5.9%
Our campaign identified voters by targeting past Republican primary voters and consistent general election voters with mail, phones and door-to-door canvassing. Our target universe was 30,367 voters. That’s roughly 1 in 4 voters in the entire Senate District. We excluded Democrat primary voters.
The total number of identified supporters that did not vote was 2,379. They were complacent for two reasons. The first is that many of my supporters did not take this race seriously and simply didn’t consider voting a high priority. Yes, they supported me, but they didn’t bother to vote. It was our fault for not instilling a greater sense of urgency in them.
Looking regionally, 1 in 2 of our identified supporters in Botetourt County voted. In Montgomery and Radford, it was 1 in 3. My opponent was from Botetourt and we both waged a “visible” campaign there. In contrast, my opponent hardly stepped foot in Radford or Montgomery and had no real campaign effort there. My supporters in Botetourt saw first hand the sense of urgency. Those in the lower part of the district did not, and turnout suffered as a result.
Of the 7,215 voters, we have estimated that 487 were core Democrats (outside of our Republican target and consistent voters). I would argue that my opponent and I split this vote. I heard from some Democrats who liked me personally and voted for me in the primary. I also heard about Democrats who voted for my opponent because of their desire to create an open seat and the opportunity for a pick up.
1,921 primary voters were outside of our target. Of those, 1,056 had only voted in the 2004 Presidential election (when considering the 2003, 2004 and 2005 election cycles) and had never voted in a Republican primary. We would never have targeted these voters in the primary and probably would not have even done so in the general. They had no pattern of voting in state or off year elections. In order to reach these voters, you would have to target every voter in the district--a task that would be immensely expensive. I don’t know any campaign that would have done so. And yet, this group made up nearly 15% of all the voters in the primary.
These voters received absolutely no contact from our campaign. Not one piece of mail. No phone calls. And no door-to-door contact. My opponent was able to tap into this pool of voters that we were not communicating with. It’s interesting to note that this number is greater than Smith’s general election victory margin and probably made the difference then as well.
I have drawn my own conclusions as to who these folks were. You are free to do the same.
Well, it’s time to get back to more important things like hearing my 2.5 year old daughter count to nurteen. If you don’t know, it comes right after twelve!
I’ve always said that I have learned more from my failures than my successes. This loss is no different. Someone said that never failing means you’re not taking enough risks to succeed and create positive change.
It’s probably unprecedented for an outgoing legislator to examine the details of his loss in such a public forum. But I am going to give it a shot—I kind of like being unconventional.
This assessment of my primary is based solely on numbers. It is not in anyway based on issues. I’ll keep those assessments to myself for now. For those that don’t know, 7,215 votes were cast in my June 2007 primary. I received 3,570 votes--76 votes short of winning. After receiving an updated voter file, we have compared the election data with our internal targets and identified supporters.
Here is a regional vote breakdown and turnout percentage.
Radford City: Bell - 134, Smith - 43, Turnout - 2.5%
Montgomery County: Bell - 350, Smith - 178, Turnout - 2.3%
Salem City: Bell - 570, Smith - 463, Turnout - 6.7%
Roanoke County: Bell - 1825, Smith - 1916, Turnout - 6.9%
Botetourt County: Bell - 691, Smith - 1045, Turnout - 8%
Total: Bell - 3570, Smith - 3645, Turnout - 5.9%
Our campaign identified voters by targeting past Republican primary voters and consistent general election voters with mail, phones and door-to-door canvassing. Our target universe was 30,367 voters. That’s roughly 1 in 4 voters in the entire Senate District. We excluded Democrat primary voters.
The total number of identified supporters that did not vote was 2,379. They were complacent for two reasons. The first is that many of my supporters did not take this race seriously and simply didn’t consider voting a high priority. Yes, they supported me, but they didn’t bother to vote. It was our fault for not instilling a greater sense of urgency in them.
Looking regionally, 1 in 2 of our identified supporters in Botetourt County voted. In Montgomery and Radford, it was 1 in 3. My opponent was from Botetourt and we both waged a “visible” campaign there. In contrast, my opponent hardly stepped foot in Radford or Montgomery and had no real campaign effort there. My supporters in Botetourt saw first hand the sense of urgency. Those in the lower part of the district did not, and turnout suffered as a result.
Of the 7,215 voters, we have estimated that 487 were core Democrats (outside of our Republican target and consistent voters). I would argue that my opponent and I split this vote. I heard from some Democrats who liked me personally and voted for me in the primary. I also heard about Democrats who voted for my opponent because of their desire to create an open seat and the opportunity for a pick up.
1,921 primary voters were outside of our target. Of those, 1,056 had only voted in the 2004 Presidential election (when considering the 2003, 2004 and 2005 election cycles) and had never voted in a Republican primary. We would never have targeted these voters in the primary and probably would not have even done so in the general. They had no pattern of voting in state or off year elections. In order to reach these voters, you would have to target every voter in the district--a task that would be immensely expensive. I don’t know any campaign that would have done so. And yet, this group made up nearly 15% of all the voters in the primary.
These voters received absolutely no contact from our campaign. Not one piece of mail. No phone calls. And no door-to-door contact. My opponent was able to tap into this pool of voters that we were not communicating with. It’s interesting to note that this number is greater than Smith’s general election victory margin and probably made the difference then as well.
I have drawn my own conclusions as to who these folks were. You are free to do the same.
Well, it’s time to get back to more important things like hearing my 2.5 year old daughter count to nurteen. If you don’t know, it comes right after twelve!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Yes Virginia, Deals Are Made in the General Assembly
Two posts have sprung up on Right Wing Liberal and Spank That Donkey over some comments I made on RWL regarding the 2007 transportation package (HB 3202).
It’s true that deals were cut between House and Senate members in order to get HB 3202 passed. The House leadership promised blanket endorsements of incumbent Senators in exchange for their vote in favor of HB 3202. This should come as no surprise. Deals are as much a part of politics as campaigning. It’s how things are done. Can deal making be abused? Absolutely! It’s up to the voters to decide if what’s accomplished is either good or bad.
In the General Assembly, many deals are based on region. I might vote for (or against) something that affects residents in Northern Virginia, and is of little personal interest to me or my constituents. In exchange, my counterparts in Northern Virginia would support a future effort of mine to benefit Western Virginia.
Some may find this practice troublesome. But they shouldn’t. Think about it. The Senate has 40 members. If those 40 Senators only cast votes to benefit their districts or themselves, the legislative body would never accomplish anything.
Many have asked why I supported HB 3202. I’d be lying if I said the endorsement wasn’t appealing at the time. Of course in hindsight, that agreement was worthless. But the faux endorsement was not the only or even the most important reason for my vote. I believed that having a Republican crafted transportation package was absolutely essential to proving Republicans could lead on this important issue. It was also vital to the re-election of vulnerable Republican Senators including Cuccinelli, Devolites-Davis, O’Brien and Rerras.
Senate members from Northern Virginia and Tidewater were very much in favor of this bill and desperately wanted it to pass. I held my nose and voted for the bill because it was supported by the regional delegations and I thought maybe it was the beginning of our fractured caucus working together.
http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/if-youre-not-paying-attention-to-the-rwl-std-bell-dialogue-trialogue-youre-missing-out/
http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/spankthatdonkey2/2008/1/5/lets-cut-a-deal-va-general-assembly.html
It’s true that deals were cut between House and Senate members in order to get HB 3202 passed. The House leadership promised blanket endorsements of incumbent Senators in exchange for their vote in favor of HB 3202. This should come as no surprise. Deals are as much a part of politics as campaigning. It’s how things are done. Can deal making be abused? Absolutely! It’s up to the voters to decide if what’s accomplished is either good or bad.
In the General Assembly, many deals are based on region. I might vote for (or against) something that affects residents in Northern Virginia, and is of little personal interest to me or my constituents. In exchange, my counterparts in Northern Virginia would support a future effort of mine to benefit Western Virginia.
Some may find this practice troublesome. But they shouldn’t. Think about it. The Senate has 40 members. If those 40 Senators only cast votes to benefit their districts or themselves, the legislative body would never accomplish anything.
Many have asked why I supported HB 3202. I’d be lying if I said the endorsement wasn’t appealing at the time. Of course in hindsight, that agreement was worthless. But the faux endorsement was not the only or even the most important reason for my vote. I believed that having a Republican crafted transportation package was absolutely essential to proving Republicans could lead on this important issue. It was also vital to the re-election of vulnerable Republican Senators including Cuccinelli, Devolites-Davis, O’Brien and Rerras.
Senate members from Northern Virginia and Tidewater were very much in favor of this bill and desperately wanted it to pass. I held my nose and voted for the bill because it was supported by the regional delegations and I thought maybe it was the beginning of our fractured caucus working together.
http://rightwingliberal.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/if-youre-not-paying-attention-to-the-rwl-std-bell-dialogue-trialogue-youre-missing-out/
http://www.spankthatdonkey.com/spankthatdonkey2/2008/1/5/lets-cut-a-deal-va-general-assembly.html
Friday, January 4, 2008
Congrats Huck!
Congratulations to Mike Huckabee on his Iowa Caucus win! It is amazing to me that a guy with little money and “no chance to win”, as many of the pundits said, could pull an upset like this. I know this is a great moment for the candidate and his family, as well as his staff, including our friends from Virginia—I know you are having a blast Vincent! Congrats!
The airwaves are full of political analysts spouting off the reasons for the Huckabee and Obama wins. I think it’s simple. They both successfully tapped into a deep desire for change within their respective parties, and I think within our entire country. This desire for change is incredibly powerful. Think about it. If one year ago, someone had told you (or me for that matter) that Clinton and to a lesser degree Romney would lose the Iowa causes, you would have thought they were nuts. Clinton has been presumptive nominee since Kerry’s loss in 2004. She may still win the nomination but this certainly shakes things up a bit.
Where does this leave the various candidates? I believe the Clinton machine is powerful enough to overcome these early losses. She’s just going to have to work a whole lot harder to win than anyone ever thought. Obama now has to capitalize on the Iowa momentum, something I am not sure he can do.
On the Republican side, Romney is definitely the big loser. If these two candidates had been equal in money and organization and the results had been tighter, it might not be so damaging. But Romney had a lot more money and an established organization and he still had his hat handed to him. A Huckabee or McCain win in New Hampshire will deliver another blow to Romney. Most candidates would probably drop out after those two losses. Romney may have the money to stick around for a while.
Speaking of dropping out, I think Thompson will be the first top tier candidate to throw in the towel. He will have zero momentum coming out of Iowa or New Hampshire and a South Carolina loss takes him out of the race. Ron Paul on the other hand is here to stay. My guess is he goes to the September Convention having not conceded anything. Should no candidate reach the magic number of Delegates before the Convention, Ron Paul, and his dedicated 10%, will be a major player at the Convention.
The airwaves are full of political analysts spouting off the reasons for the Huckabee and Obama wins. I think it’s simple. They both successfully tapped into a deep desire for change within their respective parties, and I think within our entire country. This desire for change is incredibly powerful. Think about it. If one year ago, someone had told you (or me for that matter) that Clinton and to a lesser degree Romney would lose the Iowa causes, you would have thought they were nuts. Clinton has been presumptive nominee since Kerry’s loss in 2004. She may still win the nomination but this certainly shakes things up a bit.
Where does this leave the various candidates? I believe the Clinton machine is powerful enough to overcome these early losses. She’s just going to have to work a whole lot harder to win than anyone ever thought. Obama now has to capitalize on the Iowa momentum, something I am not sure he can do.
On the Republican side, Romney is definitely the big loser. If these two candidates had been equal in money and organization and the results had been tighter, it might not be so damaging. But Romney had a lot more money and an established organization and he still had his hat handed to him. A Huckabee or McCain win in New Hampshire will deliver another blow to Romney. Most candidates would probably drop out after those two losses. Romney may have the money to stick around for a while.
Speaking of dropping out, I think Thompson will be the first top tier candidate to throw in the towel. He will have zero momentum coming out of Iowa or New Hampshire and a South Carolina loss takes him out of the race. Ron Paul on the other hand is here to stay. My guess is he goes to the September Convention having not conceded anything. Should no candidate reach the magic number of Delegates before the Convention, Ron Paul, and his dedicated 10%, will be a major player at the Convention.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The New Democratic Senate Majority
There is a lot of talk, amongst politicos and on the blogosphere, about what the new Democrat controlled Senate will be like. I doubt it will be as radically liberal as many suspect. Now don’t get me wrong. Will it be different than the Republican controlled Senate? Absolutely. I chuckle when I hear some in the Republican party dismiss the Senate loss, saying “it won’t be any different”. But the Democrats have a lot to lose--and gain--and I don’t think they are dumb enough to blow it. At least not yet.
The liberal wing of the Democratic party will certainly want to pull the Senate to the left. And in some areas, they may be successful. But today’s Virginia Democratic party is largely ruled from the center and those in power have their sights set on both the House of Delegates and the Governor’s mansion in 2009. A liberal agenda will give Republicans ammunition to use against them next year and could potentially cost the Democrats what could be complete control of Virginia’s political houses. Should they successfully take the House in 2009, then yes, I think the General Assembly would lurch to the left. But for the next two years, the Democrat Senate will tread lightly.
There will be efforts to role back parental notification and weaken our 2nd Amendment protections. I’d be surprised if they make it to the Senate floor. Legislation dealing with discrimination based on sexual orientation in State government probably will make it out. I was the deciding vote in 2007 to keep this type of bill in committee.
But the Democrat leadership will allow a few key issues to slip through. I predict there will be a major effort to bring back parole, but in a new form. They won’t use the old argument of appealing for leniency. The Democrats will pit the social and fiscal wings of the Republican party against one another.
Because of the abolition of parole, Virginia’s inmate population is growing. So much so that we will have to build one prison a year to keep up with the demand for beds. These prisons carry a price tag of $100 million each. With slowing revenue growth, it will be increasingly difficult for the lawmakers to find this kind of money. And there you have it. The Democrats will say it’s fiscally responsible (conservative) to bring back a form of parole and save taxpayer money by not continuing the prison building boom. If they can successfully divide the GOP on this issue, Democrats will undue one of our party’s most proud accomplishments.
The liberal wing of the Democratic party will certainly want to pull the Senate to the left. And in some areas, they may be successful. But today’s Virginia Democratic party is largely ruled from the center and those in power have their sights set on both the House of Delegates and the Governor’s mansion in 2009. A liberal agenda will give Republicans ammunition to use against them next year and could potentially cost the Democrats what could be complete control of Virginia’s political houses. Should they successfully take the House in 2009, then yes, I think the General Assembly would lurch to the left. But for the next two years, the Democrat Senate will tread lightly.
There will be efforts to role back parental notification and weaken our 2nd Amendment protections. I’d be surprised if they make it to the Senate floor. Legislation dealing with discrimination based on sexual orientation in State government probably will make it out. I was the deciding vote in 2007 to keep this type of bill in committee.
But the Democrat leadership will allow a few key issues to slip through. I predict there will be a major effort to bring back parole, but in a new form. They won’t use the old argument of appealing for leniency. The Democrats will pit the social and fiscal wings of the Republican party against one another.
Because of the abolition of parole, Virginia’s inmate population is growing. So much so that we will have to build one prison a year to keep up with the demand for beds. These prisons carry a price tag of $100 million each. With slowing revenue growth, it will be increasingly difficult for the lawmakers to find this kind of money. And there you have it. The Democrats will say it’s fiscally responsible (conservative) to bring back a form of parole and save taxpayer money by not continuing the prison building boom. If they can successfully divide the GOP on this issue, Democrats will undue one of our party’s most proud accomplishments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
