RK diary misses the point

One thing I have to admire about Raising Kaine…the never ending ability to go self-righteous over the most ridiculous things.  In this case, it is the willingness of newspapers to get democratic takes on a GOP matter.

 In a recent RK diary, “Rob” takes issue with coverage of the GOP transportation meetings, saying the real story is how there has been failure to make progress. I doubt he has concrete proof of this, but given the absence of an announcement of an agreement it is a reasonable assumption to make.

Then he takes off on who is not part of the story:

Sure, hearing from the Republicans about their feud is an important part of the story. But these journalist are simply letting these GOP leaders spin a story of unity and cheer. Getting the perspective of some non-GOP leaders like, I don’t know, the Governor would’ve been the fair thing to do. Readers deserve to hear what the gentleman who would have to sign any legislation - or anybody from his party, for that matter - has to say about the prospects of intra-party compromise from the GOP.

The various papers don’t have to, because:
(a) It is their story, so they can write what they like, much like it is your blog piece, and you can write what you want;
(b) The story is on the meetings, and not the opposition reaction. You save the reaction for another piece, thus keeping interest in the story alive…you know, sort of like the WaPo did with macaca last fall.
(c) Finally, and most important, they already know that Kaine is going to say whatever he can for greatest political advantage. Remember, this is the guy who promised not to raise taxes while running for office and then asks for higher taxes within a month of being elected.

Example: Today’s Washington Post article writes that members of both parties:

…say Kaine has developed a brash, partisan style that has ratcheted up tensions with the conservative wing of the state GOP and has made negotiations over transportation and other issues more difficult than necessary.

Elsewhere Kaine says:

“I don’t apologize for trying to promote what I think is right,” Kaine said. “The notion that you have to apologize for being a part of a two-party system, I don’t believe you do. It’s one of the things that makes our system great.”

And that is where RK and Rob miss the point. Kaine knows he is in a two party system and where both parties put up an idea, and he is unapologetic about doing all he can to get his policies enacted. That being the case, don’t you think it is pretty obvious how he is going to characterize the GOP meetings? 

If you cannot, then you have not been following Tim Kaine’s career.  Hint: he will say anything he can to undermine, redefine, mischaracterize, and ultimately defeat the GOP proposal…

If you really think papers need to print Kaine’s reactions-when you know exactly what he is going to say-then you probably should also insist newspapers regularly report on other stunning news…perhaps that the sun comes up in the east, that fast food is unhealthy, and that George Allen has not cornered the market on humility.

He’s Chevy Chase…and he’s a Jerk

Those of a certain age clearly recall then unknown comedy writer Chevy Chase rocketing to stardom during the first season of Saturday Night Live (SNL). He became the breakout star of the show, and left after the first season to take on a career in movies. His big acts were serving as lone anchorman of LateNight News with his catch phrase “I’m Chevy Chase, and you’re not”, and his bumbling parody of Gerald Ford.

Many accounts since his departure, including several in Tom Shales SNL oral history, describe Mr. Chase as many things, none of them nice. The validity of these descriptions was born out in his recent comments.

Chase was quoted as saying “he does not enjoy the renewed attention the ex-president’s death brought him.” Apparently, this is more than am mild sore spot for old Chevy, whom Ford once described as “a very funny suburb”:

Chase, who has starred in many Hollywood film comedies and written for television shows, said he gets upset when people say that Ford “made” his career.

“The man who ‘made my career’ did not do ‘Fletch,’ did not do ‘Caddyshack,’ did not write for the ‘Smothers Brothers’ before he wrote for ‘Saturday Night Live,’ did not write for 12 years before that and win Writers Guild awards.

“It’s that kind of thing that comes out in the press that perpetuates myths about me that are disgusting, that hurt my feelings, that hurt my family’s feelings.”

“He did not make my career,” said Chase, who spoke to Reuters twice this week by telephone. “If anything, I took his career and put it in the dumper because I did not want him to be president of this country, that’s the way it really should be written.”

I am not sure how asking this question can hurt his feelings when it was the Ford skits that helped Chase start a successful movie career…unless it impedes on Chase’s  feeling that he is God’s Gift to entertainment.

You read stuff like this about Chevy Chase, and he fades from the funnyman of my youth to a picture of narcisism so distinct and pungent that one might think his recent stint on “Law and Order” was less acting and more typecasting.

Bwana Just Pawn in Game of Life

I often feel like Mongo in Blazing Saddles, hence my appropriation of his timeless comment.  That is also a reason I enjoy blogs, as one can put out their thoughts and share ideas…and while I am offered reminded how slow I really can be, I never fail to learn something or find a sharper slant on what I am thinking.

Of late I have posted frequently about the RPV/General Assembly GOP need  to create not only a vision of what they want to accomplish but also do so in very clear language.  This is especially true in the realm of transportation.  Unfortunately, both the GOP and the Democrats seem to think the only thing to focus on is how much money to spend on roads.

I do not believe this is where the focus needs to be…but how best to describe the situational needs?

Enter Jim Bacon and a recent piece on transportation where he observes:

The crisis is an “access and mobility crisis,” not a “roads crisis.” While the “leadership” dithers, the “access and mobility crisis” is morphing into “an economic prosperity / social stability / environmental sustainability crisis.”

The matter is not just about transportation, per se. It is more than a matter of how long it takes to get to and from work, which is what most folks talk about. It is also a matter of ease of living…how tough is it to even get out to the main roads? Is travel so tight that you know that if you don’t do certain things at certain times then you will have to spend more time on the activity that it is worth? Do you have to use counter-intuition to choose where you shop simply because of traffic?

It is a matter of access and mobility.

Our transportation problems are not solely a roads matter…it is a matter of roads AND maintenance AND land use AND zoning AND a whole range of matters that require a comprehensive plan to map a new direction.

It has been written that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.  If true, then both the Democrats and Republicans are insane.  Why?  Because neither one seems to be seriously considering anything beyond spending as a way to combat transportation issues.  They are not considering partnership with local governments, they are just pointing (or should I say “giving a”) finger to local governments. 

Of course, the problem here is that neither side seems to really want to solve the problem.  The real desire here is to office and wield power.  An unsolved problem can be turned into a campaign issue to beat the other guys about the head and shoulders.  Any doubts about that?  Check today’s WaPo article on Tim Kaine.

And until the General Assembly becomes more about solving problems than assigning blame, then the problems will continue…and I will continue seeking better ways to phrase my ideas!

Great Idea, Wrong Attitude

Today’s WaPo reports a series of meetings are being held between members of the GA Republican Senate and house delegations to find common ground on transporation spending. A comment deep in the article brought some cultural nuggets to mind, and also suggested the talks are-to the glee of Governor Kaine-likely to end in failure.

Many years ago in the movie Primal Fear an attorney categorizes a settlement meeting as requiring negotiation and not compromise. The difference? In a negotiation both sides start the process at zero and gain something, but in a compromise both sides start the process expecting to get all they can, and inevitably get less than what they wanted.

From martial Japan (as well as on the tv show Thirtysomething) the story is told of two samaurai from opposing forces encounter each other on an isolated road. They draw their swords and assume a combat stance…but neither one moves, because the first to move gives up the advantage. Even as night came and the skies opened, neither one moved…preferring to stand wet and in the dark rather than risk making the first move.

Why did these stories come to mind? Reported in the article:

Sources in both camps expressed some optimism that the talks have helped. But getting both sides to compromise after more than five years at each other’s throats is proving difficult.”

Meetings such as these are great and long overdue.  The Va GOP needs a new vision and an explainable plan for fixing the transportation needs of the Commonwealth.  My fear is that the reporter used exactly the right language to describe the situation.

Secret meetings to decide on transportation spending are not needed.  What is needed are open discussions to determine a GOP position on how to at least begin to handle the transportation problems in Virginia.  These discussions should put everything on the table, from tax increases to DOT reorganization to giving more authority to localities.  Start from scratch.

Understand that the Democrats could care less about this.  A transportation deadlock plays into their hands.  The GA Democrats will simply say we need more money to handle these problems, and when the GA GOP vote it down without offering an alternative then the Democrats will have their primo issue in the 2007 statehouse elections.  This will not be good ground for GOP candidates to fight on.  I have a hunch voters will line up with Democratic candidates simply because they offer a unified plan-as opposed to the GOP, who chose not to offer a plan at all.

The challenge here is more than simply not raising taxes.   It is a matter of solving problems.  The Democrats have already finessed the issue.  Tim Kaine wants to spend $500 million  on transportation, but you are not going to get that kind of money out of more fees.  Taxes will have to be increased.  Why has the populace not already stormed the governors mansion with torches and pitchforks?  Because they want a solution to transporation issues, and if the GOP does not offer one and clearly explain how it works and will work when executed, then voters will default to solution that is on the table…even if it means more taxes.

These “secret talks” are fine in theory, but if the goal is a compromise and not a unified plan, then no one will get what they want and everyone will be unhappy.  Instead, start from scratch and come up with a plan that uses all the tools available…otherwise, come next November the GOP CA contingent will be standing still, in the dark, getting wet, while staring at a larger democratic opposition.

Let’s Cut the Excuses…

If you are interested in politics and have never read Theodore White’s “Making of the President” books, go out and buy them right now.  I’ll wait.

 (whistle “Jeopardy” theme, twiddle thumbs, check clock, check it again…)

 Good.  You are back.

White offered a variety of savvy views on politics, but none better than in the “1964″ book when he described the fix Richard Nixon found himself in after his 1960 loss to JFK.  The margin was incredibly close.  Shift about 30,000 votes in the right states and Nixon wins the electoral college.  Everyone blamed him for not doing what they said, and since the race was so tight all the critics were certain they were right.  Rockefeller said Nixon went too conservative, Goldwater said he went too liberal, Eisenhower was never strongly behind him.  The criticism continued: if only Nixon spent a little more money here, or a little more time there, or not campaigned in Alaska at the end of the campaign, then we would have won! Nixon kept his head up, ran and lost an ill-advised campaign for Governor of California in 1962, then spent six years helping GOP candidates whenever asked, and rode the IOU’s and Vietnam into the White House in 1968.

In other words, he sucked it up, worked hard, and didn’t make excuses. Yes, he developed paranoia and fear of losing with disastrous consequences, but that is another story.

It is a pity that some GOP candidates are casting stones and not sucking it up.

History repeats itself, and some are throwing similar daggers at the NRSC.  Salon notes that Conrad Burns now blames the National Republican Senate Committee for this loss, saying he was crushed with outside money at the end. The article suggests the same applies to George Allen.

Only it does not.  While Burns had three terms in office and Abramoff connections to run from. Allen did not.  Allen just had to run a smart campaign.  Instead his managers allowed him to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.  “Macaca” did not torpedo him, but his reaction did.  Had Allen gone to Webb HQ and apologized on the spot to Mr. Siddarth, it would have cauterized the bleeding, and would have been in line with Allen’s image as a good fellow.  However, doing so would have required some humility and a willingness to admit a mistake.  Instead, Allen tried to stonewall…and we know how that played out.  It was not a lack of money that torpedoed Allen…it was a lack of humility.

One has to give credit to Allen. Unlike Burns, Allen has not publicly complained about money.  He chose to forgo a recount, and his concession was gracious. By the same token, he still has not (to my knowledge) shown the self-awareness to recognize he undercut himself…and it makes me wonder anew about that humility thing.

The question to be considered in the months ahead is will Allen emulate Burns and revel in a self-perceived martyrdom, or will he choose a different path and keep his head up, dress his wounds, and prepare to fight again?  If the latter, then he can rehabilitate his perception and in the absence of any unforseen developments emerge as a candidate for Governor in 2009 or be ready for a rematch with Webb in 2012…  

…but only if he has gained humility

“Squabble” or “Refuse”? Is this Good or Bad?

I had the TV on this AM as I ate breakfast, and the early morning NBC TV news on came up with this story.  While most of this is a paraphrase, the key aspects are accurate:

“Virginia Governor Tim Kaine announced he will ask the Virginia legislature for $500 million in new transportation funding. Kaine was unable to get approval of his 2006 transportation spending plans due to legislative squabbling over where the money would come from. House Republicans refused to consider any tax increase to fund the measure.”

The words that caught my attention were “squabbling” and “refused”. I don’t know whether this story makes the GOP majority GA look good by refusing to raise taxes or bad by squabbling and not offering a solution.

One thing is certain. Several weeks ago I bemoaned the lack of vision that the Virginia GOP offered.  I suggested that without vision, without an idea of where the party wanted to go, and without offering legislatice specifics to back them up, the GOP faced hard times in 2007 and beyond. Stories like this underscore my concern. Until the GOP offers its own plans on how to fix the problems facing Virginia, they run the risk of being perceived as a political party that votes reflexively against tax increases while choosing not to reveal how they will meet state needs without raising taxes, choosing instead to squabble without offering soutions.

Thank You, Cory Chandler…

…for the kind remarks.  They are greatly appreciated.

UPDATE: Since this post was published, Cory took down his blog. More’s the pity for my ego in general and the Virginia Blogosphere in particular.

New Books and New Insights

My X-mas list was dominated by books, and SWMBO came through for me.  All are needed in the library of those interested in Virginia politics, and each offered insights in even a cursory scan.  They are:

1. Virginia in the Vanguard
2. The Moderates Dilemma: Massive Resistance to School Desegregation in Virginia
3. Notes from the Sausage Factory

All are good books, and Notes is so good that I plan on sending Barnie Day a fan letter. All have been scanned, and a couple of insights come to mind:

In Notes, George Grayson writes about Vance Wilkins as the “Virginia Republican Moses”, author and architect of its rise to majority status.  Grayson describes the dictatorial control the Democrats held over the General Assembly, and how it was used against both GOP and Democrats. One manifestation of this control was allowing trusted veterans to chair multiple committees/subcommittees and not allowing younger legislators to introduce significant legislation. Grayson indicates Wilkins gained loyalty by spreading the wealth, and as Speaker of the House Wilkins limited to one (1) the amount of chairmanships any member could hold at one time.

As I read this I had a sense of deja vu, then realized that this practice that contributed to the GA to slide from democratic control to GOP control was also a reason the Byrd Machine lost control of the GA back in the day. The vets coming home from World War II came to the the General Assembly with different ideas, especially in the areas of race relations. Rather than welcome into positions of resonsibility, the new members were instead held up to a litmus test-that several failed. The Byrd leadership derided them as “Young Turks”, and fought with them over school and road funding, then even more bitterly over school desegregation. When the Byrd machine began its collapse in 1966, it fell to these same “Young Turks”.

Nancy Pelosi…take note.

As I perused Vanguard, I realized there was a name missing. That name was Frank Wolf, GOP congressman from Va-10. Given that book covers the years 1981-2006, and Wolf was first elected in 1980, and has stayed in office all that time, he seemed a natural for material in a book about Virginia politics during that time. I checked the index, and found only one reference to him (noting his chairmanship of an Appropriations Subcommittee).

It would seem that someone who was able to take a congressional seat from a Democrat, then hold it for over two decades, would merit more print. It could be as a reference to demographic changes in Virginia (see how the 10th district has changed shapes), the power of redistricting (see how the 10th was cut to help knock out George Allen AND create a democratic winnable 11th), the power of incubency, or just on how to keep winning in a district that has experienced enormous changes since he was first elected…there are so many angles, I am surprised there was not more attention given.

You see? You read, you learn. Rush to Amazon.com and order these books immediately….and read, enjoy, and learn!

Where’s the Line?

While I intended to not be blogging over the holidays, I read two days ago that is bothering me…and since it has implications for the blogosphere, I thought I would toss it out there.

First, a hypothetical situation.  A blogger with significant ties to one major political party and proprieter of a high traffic site receives a copy of an email sent by the spouse of a prominent member of the opposition party.  The email was supposedly sent by the spouse to those on a personal email list (perhaps friends, perhaps associates), letting them know their significant other wanted a divorce, then going into detail about who had the children over the next two weeks.

Next, the hypothetical question.  You are the blogger.    Do you publish the email and invite comments?

I ask as two days ago a prominent Virginia blogger did just this.  When commenters (and I was one) suggested it was not proper, the reply was that it was already out there an other blogs were publishing it.  Following my mother’s logic of “two wrongs don’t make a right”, I still did not see how this justified publishing the email.

Several hours later said blogger yanked the email copy but left up the comments…and has since published some very long posts that have pushed the post well down the sites queue of published posts.  Since then I have found only two other blogs that directly referenced the matter, and one of those has removed it.  Another blog references the original post, and offers a rant based in the alleged hypocrisy-I say alleged, as there is no proof that the original email was genuine.

The real question is regardless of authenticity or not, where do we as political bloggers draw the line?  When do personal actions become legitimate grist for the public mill?  This is a critical question for the blogosphere, as we are to date self policing.   We decide what to publish.  We do not have ombudsman offering commentary, and we do not have editors stepping in.

This question has come up several times recently in the Virginia Blogosphere…

One example of this is in the Virginia Political Blog Aggregator (VPBA).  The aggregator automatically publishes email posts by the subscribed/added blogs.  Waldo Jaquith, the provider of the VPBA, decided to pull a post that automatically went up that included a graphic photo.  Much discussion ensued, to which I had the same reaction as I had to the above blogger-this is your joint, and you can serve who and what you want.

Another example was noted earler on this blog, namely the discussion of Chap!, Truro Church, and the vote to dissociate.  Was Chap!’s vote something that should be discussed or that he should be questioned about?

We all have to draw the line, and where we draw it is up to us…I only hope we use good judgement.

It is fair to say “Bwana, having started this, what would you have done?”

1. Answers:
   On the matter originally alluded to, I would not have published, and I can only hope if the email refrenced above turns out to be a forgery or was disseminated without permissions, that any and all bloggers who posted it or tried to make hay about it also post an apology.
2. Regarding Waldo-I would have yanked it.
3. Regarding Chap!-I publish, as I see it as a matter of church administration and not a reflection of faith. However, I likely would not have started the discussion, because I am not bright enough to see the connection between his vote and his politics.

I would also reply to a question by Tucker Watkins, who asks this question in the Waldo discussion:

This raises a very interesting question for me. Does the aggregator or blogger have the obligation to take down a post about someone when it is proven that the post is factually unquestionably false? Let’s say an allegation of a marital affair is posted and when the facts are checked, there is no way it could have been true. Is it proper to allow such slander to remain on a blog? I would really like a few of you who have blogs to answer the question of what you would do if someone posted such in a comment on your blog…

I think Brother Watkins  can guess my answer to his question.  I know where I draw the line.  I hope others will give some thought to where they will do the same.

Dave Albo: Correct while being Wrong

When I was younger and my family wasleaving on an outing one April day, my mother asked me if we needed raincoats.  I looked out at the dry street and yard, breathed in the moistening air, took a look at the storm clouds in the distance, and said, “I don’t know, it’s not raining!”.  In a hurry, we left without jackets and later were drenched in a downpour courtesy of the same storm clouds I saw earlier in the afternoon.

I learned that day it is possible to be factually correct and completely misjudge the situation.  Apparently some of our elected officials have not learned that lesson.

A recent Washington Times article examined the RPV efforts to get a better handle on technology, including interaction with bloggers. The article referenced The Cooch’s suggestion (which I examined here), and provided comments from a number of GOP officials who see the benefit of a greater technological awareness and competence.

As always, there is an exception. Delegate Dave Albo (R-Springfield) doesn’t see the value of such efforts. Speaking in particular of bloggers:

[Albo] said he is not convinced that increasing the party’s influence on the Internet will pay dividends with undecided voters.

“The problem is most of the people who monitor these blogs are hobbyists who already know who they are going to vote for,” he said. “I don’t think the average Joe who doesn’t know whom he is going to vote for is monitoring blogs.”

This is a true statement, but draws the wrong conclusion.

Average Joe is not monitoring blogs, but the MSM is monitoring them as a source of information. If there are ten blogs saying an event happened this way, and only one saying it happened another way (especially if one of the ten produces video), then newspaper and television reporters-mediums that Average Joe probably does monitor-may well report the majority view as fact.

Want proof? The MSM ultimately put the word on Senator Allen’s various verbal slips, but the seed work was done by bloggers. The initial stories were all broken first on blogs, then picked up by the MSM.

Now, did the blogs defeat George Allen? Not hardly. He did that to himself. But the blogs helped create a new terrain that gave the Senator chances to make mistakes, which he then embraced.

Beyond serving as a source of MSM leads and information, blogs are also a source of inspiration and motivation. Delegate Albo should recognize that blog readers are more than “hobbyists who already know who they are going to vote for”. They are also campaign volunteers who work the phone banks, walk the precincts, and do the grunt work that will make or break a campaign. Isn’t it prudent to be able to effectively reach these people? Isn’t it prudent to have as many tools as possible to not only disseminate the party POV, but also to key up your workers to go once more into the breach?

All contests, from combat to cake bakes, are won by deploying a combinations of tools and techniques. Can you imagine an old west gunfighter getting challenged to a gunfight, but deciding to only take a Bowie Knife? It would probably be a one-sided fight. Any candidate who refuses to make full use of all tools available to fight an election is taking the same risk.

It is possible to be correct while being wrong…and unless attitudes change I have a hunch that Delegate Albo will discover the pleasure and pain of that condition.