Orrin Kline, Sr. RIP

Life has been extremely hectic for me recently, hence the dearth of posts.  However, a recent event must be mentioned.

 Yesterday the earthly remains of Orrin Kline, Sr., 98 years old, were laid to rest at Cannon Branch Cemetery.  I note his passing for several reasons:

Orrin was a good man, and a neighbor of ours in Manassas for many years. As my father said, “He was the most honest person I ever knew … and was very generous in his work with the church. Orrin will be missed by my family.” My mom and dad and Orrin’s son and daughter in law were very close, so close as to pretty much be part of each other’s family.  My sister and I even called Orrin Sr. “Grand DaddY”.  When my mother passed many years ago, Orrin and his late wife Elva were a source of comfort and support for all of us.

Orrin was a successful politician. He was lead man in the property acquisition of Lake Manassas for the Town of Manassas, and worked hand in hand with Harry Parrish to take Manassas to City status. Orrin served on the Manassas Town and then City Council from 1959-1978, and then again in 1979-1980 when he was appointed to fill an unexpired term. Orrin spent 13 of those years as Vice-Mayor to Harry’s Mayor, and together they changed their corner of the world.

Orrin was a successful businessman, coming to work for Milt Hottle in the memorial stone in the mid 1920’s, then buying the business on Milt’s passing in 1945, and later selling it when he retired. When you drive by Kline’s Memorial on Va. 28 in Manassas, know that said establishment was not just formerly owned by Orrin Kline, but that it is the second oldest business establishment in Manassas.

Orrin knew what he knew, and was not afraid to say it. At the age of 95 he was asked by a physician how Orrin accounted for his good health. The reply, “I never smoked tobacco, I never drank alcohol, and I’m a good Republican.”

I miss him already…they just don’t make them like that any more.

God Speed,

What Makes Them Run?

Recently two politicians of distinct repute within their circles made distinctly different announcements regarding their political future.  Their situations, plus those of another who has yet to decide, has me wondering what makes them run?

Virginia state Senator John Chichester, President Pro Tempore of the Virginia Senate, announced a week ago that he would not be a candidate for reelection.  Aside from the strains of what promised to be a bruising nominating campaign and the retirement of his closest ally in the Senate, Chichester wants to help his wife Karen as she continues her recovery from a serious stroke.

Yesterday former US Senator and Democratic Party VP nominee John Edwards announced that his wife Elizabeth had suffered a recurrence of and worsening of her cancer.  Nonetheless, after prayerful consideration, he would continue-with her approval and encouragement-his quest for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.

What makes them run?

I don’t know.  The considerations that go into that decision can be complex and highly personal, and sometimes stunningly simple.  My father was twice approached to run for the General Assembly.  The first time my father, a pediatrician, declined the opportunity.  Why?  The General Assembly meets during Cold and Flu season, and with a family to feed and a partnership to maintain he thought he needed to be home to work during that time of the year.  The second time-seven years later-my father, still a pediatrician, again declined the opportunity.  This time it was not the work, but certain dynamics in our family made it the better part of valor for him not to run.  Other people given this opportunity would have seized the chance with both hands.

What makes them run?

This question plays out in front of us with Charles Colgan, Democratic state Senator from Prince William County.  On the one hand, the VaDems need his seat to have a reasonable chance of taking the upper house.  Moreover, Colgan stands to become President Pro Tempore of the Senate and chairman of the Finance Committee if he is reelected and the Democrats take the Senate.  Such temptations are irresistible to many.

By the same token, the Senator has recently sold Colgan Airlines for millions of dollars.  He has a passel of grandchildren.  He watched his friend Harry Parrish die in the saddle last year, not even able to get home from his final GA session.  Moreover, what if he wins and the VaDems do not take the Senate?  Is the risk of four more years in the minority worth the possibility of becoming the most powerful man in the Virginia Senate?  What about the lure of a very comfortable and relaxed retirement from the political trenches, where he has labored for almost forty years?  The temptations of peace and relaxation over the possibility of power have proven irresistible to many.

What makes them run?

I don’t know.  I don’t know what drives folks to set aside their lives and seek public office.  Rather to seek public office and open their lives for inspection.  Shoot, I am so protective of my families privacy that I blog with a pseudonym.  The drive, desire, fearlessness and sheer chutzpah that drives those who seek office is beyond my ken.

Whatever it is, those who seek to represent the public are a special breed.  They have the courage to step up and the desire to make their voice heard.  They are a critical part of our representative democracy, and my hat is off to them-no matter how much I disagree with them.

And so…

To John Chichester-tank you for your service.

To John and Elizabeth Edwards-may God bless you in your moments of crisis, and may your family be able to find happiness and balance in the months ahead, and

To Chuck Colgan-make the decision you want to make. Don’t succumb to the specter of either Tim Kaine or Bob Fitzsimmonds. whatever you do, make sure to do what you want to do.

Office Space to be Remade?

 What do you think of the idea of the cubicle classic “Office Space” being remade as a slasher movie?

Enjoy!

The Democratic Balloon goes UP in Virginia 10

During the Great War a precursor to an assault was sending up observers in balloons to help pinpoint artillery fire.  It appears the Democratic balloon in Virginia 10 has gone up, and the gallop to 2008 is on.

Earlier this week in Too Conservative it was noted that retired Colonel Mike “Make Life Matter” Turner of Waterford, motivational speaker renowned for his anti-Frank Wolf letters to the editor, was telling people he was running for the democratic nomination for Virginia 10 in 2008. I seem to recall a comment somewhere that Turner was or claimed to be a foreign policy advisor to Judy Feder (the failed Democratic candidate in Va-10 in 2006), but I cannot seem to find the comment.

Shortly thereafter a post came up at Raising Kaine reporting that a “senior advisor” said that Judy Feder was “seriously considering” another run in 2008. This possibility was picked up at BVBL and discussed at some length.

For purposes of pontification, let’s assume this is all true, and then let’s consider a recurring comment in these strings…

There seems to be the potential for a small tussle in the Democratic tent.  I tend to think both are accurate, and that the Raising Kaine piece was designed to get the word out for Dems not to commit to soon.  I do know that Ms. Feder has already filed the paperwork to be a candidate in 2008, although this may have been a pro-forma move to keep her options open.  It is not surprising that such a posting came up in RK, which has long been a huge Federista and was genuinely surprised she lost as badly as she did in 2006 and sought input to figure out why it happened.

I tend to think Ms. Feder wants to get the Democratic nomination on the cheap and not have to spend any money or energy on a nomination fight, hence the post.

One of the more interesting aspects of these posts is a recurring comment-or more precisely, a wishful hope. Throughout these posts there are several suggestions that Wolf may not run in 2008. They cite age, loss of majority status, no wish to fight another stressful campaign.

This whole idea is known as false hope. These folks keep forgetting a few things:
a) Congressman Wolf has regularly referred to serving in Congress as the “dream of a lifetime”. He ran three times before he was elected. One does not give up something they worked that hard to obtain
b) Frank Wolf went into Congress in the minority and functioned effectively. The causes he espouses are best served by his continued presence in Congress. Not much motivation there to step down.

A year ago the Democrats were deriding Frank Wolf as an out-of-touch old man in a changing demographic area. They poured money into the district, even moving it onto target lists late in the campaign. All this in the most toxic year for a Republican candidate in 30 years. Yet with all this, Judy Feder got only 40.96% of the vote, even running behind the woefully underfunded Andrew Hurst in Va-11.

Somehow, wining that big in a bad year for the GOP does not strike me as adequate motivation for Congressman Wolf to step down.   By the same token, having lost solidly in 2006 despite all the factors listed above, and with a presidential race going on in 2008 with a majority to protect, I wonder if Ms. Feder or any Democratic contender in Va-10 will be considered a strong choice for donors…but that is for another post at another time.

Bottom line-Lord willing and the river don’t rise Frank Wolf is running for reelection in 2008, and I bet he wins again. Frank Wolf is a good man untouched by scandal with unparalleled constituent service.

Sorry to bring such sad tidings to all those salivating for a chance to turn Va-10 blue, but that is the way it is.

What “Vanguard” Missed-and why it is so “Virginia” to do so…

My Blog-lleague (do you like the new word?) The Mason Conservative recently picked up Frank Atkinson’s Virginia in the Vanguard, and is raving about it over at his joint.  Having recently re-read the book myself, I commented if he could put his finger on the missing element in the book.  TMC guessed “Tom Davis”,  for which he gets partial credit.

Two things are missing from the book, one small and one large.  The small item is the author’s perspective.  When Frank (and having known him for almost 30 years I will indulge in the first name privilege) wrote The Dynamic Dominion he did the research and drafting as me went from college student to law student to law clerk. He was not a mover and shaker, and he included far more accounts by the players on both sides of the aisle. By the time he wrote Vanguard he had moved in the world to being a large presence in the Richmond legal profession and an advisor and counselor to Governors of Virginia. He is a big dog, and often a player in the events being discussed. As a result, the book loses some of the personal flair of Dominion and takes on more of the tone of a textbook.

What is really missing in Vanguardis anything beyond a superficial consideration of Virginia’s congressional politics and elections. While the Virginia GOP only took majority status in 1999, the GOP and Dems have been swapping majority status back and forth since 1972. Frank Wolf, who is ranked in the top twenty most influential folks on Capitol Hill gets one brief mention in Vanguard. Tom Davis, a political mastermind and longtime potential statewide candidate who won back the new 11th district-a few mentions. Generally speaking, Congressman only got major ink if they were interested in statewide races (i.e. LF Payne and Stan Parris). I think while the omission is understandable from a traditional point of view, the book loses something crucial due to the omission.

Virginia has a tradition of sorts…for aspiring Virginia politicians typically the road runs from Richmond to Washington, and not the other way around. Several Governors (Swanson, Byrd, Tuck, Allen, Robb) went on to DC in one legislative house or the other, but not since Tom Stanley in 1953 has a Virginia member of Congress successfully won a statewide race for a state office. Thus, it is not surprising Frank chose to focus attention elsewhere. This is especially true as his life and experience is Richmond base, not Washington, and congressional anecdotes are mentioned only insofar as they affect Richmond or are affected by Richmond. Example-Owen Pickett and the Wilder/Byrd controversy in 1982 that pushed Pickett from the race is given a fair amount of space, but Pickett winning the 2nd district seat in 1986 receives small attention. This book carries on the very “Virginia” tradition of focusing on state politics and leaving federal level politics to wonks and those concerned with Defense and federal employee matters.

Part of this is based in the Virginia practice of having federal and state elections in different years…part of this is based in a habit of most of the state to look to Richmond for guidance and not Washington.  Probably it has its historical roots in ”The Recent Unpleasantness”, a term I once heard from a TC Williams law professor right before he referred to Monument Avenue as being the “Street of Second Place Bowling Trophies”.

Ah, but I digress…

While understandable from a traditional standpoint, this omission misses an opportunity to not only frame Virginia politics in a more complete light, but also misses the chance to use Congressional electoral fights to underscore the tensions and struggles that undergirded state elections in the years covered. A short list of compelling congressional fights and figures worthy of coverage:

A) Comparison of Frank Wolf and Stan Parris-the first a man whose dream job is being a congressman v. a man who seemed to want every political position he could have gained.
B) The GOP loss and redemption of the 6th district, and how the Roanoke influences behind Ray Garland made a decision in 1982 to sit on their hands and risk losing the seat to the Democrats rather than have a congressman who was not from the Roanoke end of the 6th district.
C) How Rick Boucher worked the 9th district demographics to dislodge long term incumbent Bill Wampler in 1982.
D) How state Senator Joe Canada’s convention mishaps in 1977 and 1981 gummed up his congressional chances in 1986
E) How the Democrats gummed up their chances to win the old Lucky 7th congressional district pre-1990 by running candidates from Charlottesville instead of Winchester
E1) The near bloodbath that occured in Charlottesville in 1984 when choosing a GOP successor for Ken Robinson.
F) More attention to the 1992 11th district race, where Virginia got its first woman congressional representative when the GOP chose a congressman’s son to run without adequately vetting him.
G) How Norm Sissiky’s death may have saved Randy Forbes career, not to mention how the event indirectly helped springboard Tim Kaine’s career.
H) How Mark Warner hustled the Kerry campaign out of $250,000 for voter ID in Virgina 10 in 1984 by convincing Kerry it was winnable for James Socas.
I) Carpetbagging in a mobile society…James Socas lost the 2004 Va-10 race in part by being framed as a “carpetbagger” without sufficient Virginia roots…how long do you have to be connected to Virginia to be viable? Does it change based on where in the state you are.
J) The Wolf-Milliken race of 1986, which was the last great democratic attempt to take the old 10th when it still contained Arlington.

These are just some of the events and ideas that are related to congressional politics that come to mind that were not covered or received only cursory notice in Vanguard. Perhaps they will be the subject of a different book…or maybe they will be covered in the next edition of Vanguard. We shall see.

Nonetheless, no matter how typical it is of Virginia political tradition to separate out the politics of state elections and federal elections, I think a chance was missed here…and what could have been a comprehensive classic instead becomes a valuable book that could have been more.

What Politicians Can Learn from American Idol

At a time when polticians and public figures are often accused of pretense and misdirection, it seems a fair time to point out they all have something to learn from “American Idol” (hereinafter AI) , the popular television talent show teaches us there is one way sure way to put yourself into position to win an election, whether it be for singing superstar or public office: be who you are, not who you think folks want you to be.

 But, first let’s backtrack…many of you have already seen this clip of Hillary Clinton speaking in Selma, Alabama:

 

Senator Clinton spoke at the First Baptist Church in Selma as part of the commemoration of the Montgomery to Selma Civil Rights march that ended in bloodshed at the Edmund Pettis Bridge.  After listening to Mrs. Clinton, several commentators suggested she attempted to adopt a “southern accent” as part of her speech.  Although I am no Hillary fan, let me state that the suggestion is ridiculous, but it draws attention to why she does need to pay more attention to AI.

One cannot adopt a southern accent.  A southern accent is felt deep to the bones, and is the product of living in the region.   In fact, I suggest there is actually more than one type of southern accent.  The outlander may think they all roll together, but the typical non-southerner will assume you have an accent even if all you do is say “y’all”.  I bet you could put your native New Yorker in a room with folks from Tidewater, Richmond, the Piedmont, the Southside, the Valley, and Big Stone Gap and he would identify each one as having a southern accent.  What would be ignored is the subtle differences in pitch, pace, and tone that a native of Virginia would readily identify.  Imagine the range that would kick in if you included folks from other states in Dixie!

Perhaps the final word is best left to Johnny Cash and Tom Petty, who generations apart once sang:

There’s a southern accent, where I come from
The young’uns call it country, The Yankees call it dumb
I got my own way of talkin’ But everything is done,
with a southern accent Where I come from

What Hillary did attempt to do is to imitate call and respond type speech pattern that is native to the Southern Baptist church and used by a wide number of churches across Dixie. It is easy to recognize but takes a little instinct to accurately execute. The basic idea is that the speaker puts out their idea in a rising ladder of signicance, and audience response grows louder and more involved as the speaker builds toward a mighty conclusion.

I first encountered the style up close and personal at the 1988 Mock Democratic Convention at Washington and Lee University. Mayor Andrew Young of Atlanta, former Congressman and UN Ambassador, was the speaker. I was sitting down front with Powell Starks, a W&L seven year man and native of Louisville, KY.

I noticed that Mayor Young seemed to be getting annoyed with the predominantly anglo crowd, even though it was being respectful and responding frequently with loud applause and cheers. I mentioned this to Powell, who said, “He is upset because we are breaking his rhythmn.”

I said I didn’t understand. Powell said, “Politicians disguise sound bites as speeches. They want to have their speeches broken up by applause, and plan them that way. Mayor Young is an ordained minister…he wants us to to respond in a lower key fashion-and “amen” might not be inappropriate”-while he builds to his conclusion. Then he gets big applause, and he starts in on his next major point. That way he builds up momentum, and part of the momentum is the rhythmn. By applauding as frequently as we are, we are breaking up his rhythm, and that is why he is annoyed.”

If you listen objectively to the Hillary C. clip above you can see that is exactly what she is trying to do. However, this is a pattern and practice that is so identified with the South that when someone who does not have the right accent-instead, has an accent from Chicago cross bred with almost a lifetime in the North-it sounds like an attempt at an imitation. She comes across as trying to be something she is not.

Which brings us back to AI…

Devotees of AI (hello, Vivian!) regularly see the eager applicants attempt to sing songs they like or that they think the judges will like without giving much thought as to whether they can actually sing the song well. Each season someone rolls out Whitney Houston songs and Celine Dion songs, and almost all of them crash and burn because they don’t have the big vocal presence to make it work. Contestants pick songs they like, and not necessarily songs they can sing well. Contestants pick songs they think the judges will like, rather than songs they can sing well. Contestants try to be what they think the judges want to see, instead of being themselves and impressing the judges with their talent.

Political candidates are the same. They do all type of superficial things to make us feel a connection, when what we want is a leader. We want to be impressed by quality of their ideas and the content of their character, and not whether they ate crabcakes in Baltimore or a Po Boy in New Orleans or a Cheese steak in Philly w/o getting cheez whiz on their tie. Those who want to lead us focus on the superficial while ignoring the fundamental. They try to be what the voters want them to be and tell the voters what they think voters want to hear. What we want is for them to be honest and show us who they are and where they want to lead us.

Is is my hope that as the campaign season rolls on toward Election Day 2008 that the ever narrowing number of candidates will consider AI and all those failed contestants who focused on what they thought the judges liked. I hope those that aspire to the nation’s highest offices will choose to trust the will of the voter and not the siren of their ambition, and be straight with us about who they are and where they want to go.

If you don’t, Simon Colwell-the mean AI judge- may just end up with a new career as a political consultant. Hillary, take heed!

Tim Kaine: Fustest with the Leastest in Shades of Gray

Confederate cavalryman Nathan Bedford Forrest was once asked how for his advice on how to be successful in combat.  His immortal reply? “Get there Fustest with the Mostest”.

Our governor is trying to show he can govern from the opposite end of the spectrum, by getting there fustest with the leastest…

 These days the Gov is racing around the commonwealth, trying to prove his relevance by seeking input as to how to address the General Assembly Transportation bill.  As I drove into work in the gloaming light of a NOVA morning, I almost felt sorry for him. 

Why? 

The Gov gambled the GOP majority General Assembly would again train wreck on transportation, and create an issue for the fall.  Swing and miss, strike one.

The Gov, certain his gamble would pay off, did not have a plan of his own to offer as a counter balance.  Swing and  miss, strike two.

Now, he has to cobble together some type of coherent response, and will face future sessions of the legislature without the team of Chichester and Potts running intereference for him.  Ooooooooooooh…fastball on the corner, Strike Three with the bat on his shoulder.

How did it come to this?  How is it he is so tone deaf to politics?

I suggest it is because he likely came to the office with as little public exposure and strength as is possible.

Think about it.  His claim to fame in getting the democratic nomination for Lt. Governor in 2001 was being Mayor of Richmond.  However, that position was elected from and by the membership of the city counsel and not from the entire city.  Nice title, but not as impressive upon closer inspection.

His election as Lt. governor was similarly less than resounding.  He won the primary with a plurality, and then clung to Mark Warner coattails and barely got by a weak GOP statewide candidate.

He was elected governor less on his own credentials than on Mark Warner’s reputation and the ineptitude of the Jerry Kilgore campaign.  He campaigned for office by being against new taxes, and since being elected has decided there are few new taxes he will not entertain…unless they are proposed by the GOP majority House of Delegates.

 So you have a man who has been elected consistently by seeking a slightly darker shade of grey, and eschews the challenge of bright, bold colors.  It is little wonder he cannot get a lot of folks to follow him.

Now, all the above I drafted a couple of days ago and tucked away for future consideration…then I get to see that somehow Jeff “Good Copy” Schapiro seized similar language in today’s RTD.

Tim Kaine is always searching for new shades of gray. This gets him in trouble with a General Assembly for which issues are largely black or white. His handling of transportation is the most recent example of a Kaine-sian trait that worked for him as a lawyer but works against him as governor….

He once favored plowing in to transportation $500 million that otherwise would go to schools, police and human services. This would have been a general-fund grab he now opposes as a threat to — you guessed it schools, police and human services.

And what of Kaine’s campaign promise to resist higher taxes until transportation funds were constitutionally designated only for asphalt? The tax pledge and lock box have been paved over by layers of thick, gooey rhetoric.

So clearly I am not alone in this line of thought…although I shudder at the company I am apprently keeping. Then Schapiro steps in it…he claims:

Further, Kaine is a victim of his predecessor’s success. Were it not for a GOP rebellion in the House in 2004, fellow Democrat Mark Warner would have been denied the $1.4 billion tax increase for education, law enforcement and social services that transformed him into presidential prospect.

In reality, he is the both the victim of his predecessor’s duplicity. Warner went to the GOP, said the state would run a deficit and threaten the AAA bond rating without a tax increase. Many good republicans took Warner at his word and voted for the increase. Imagine their surprise when it turned out the state would have had a surplus even without the tax increase.  However, since GOP folks voted for the tax increase-no matter how well intentioned-the democrats now had cover on the issue of raising taxes.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. In the wake of this, is it realistic for anyone to think the GOP in the house will take Kaine’s word? He did not offer a plan, he has not offered any compelling factual or data based argument to validate his desire for higher taxes…yes, a desire for higher taxes from the man who campaigned as saying he would not raise taxes.

He has gotten elected to office by low margins pulled in by friendly coattails or inept opponents.  He did this by seeking shades of gray, a trait noticed even by the noticeably anti-GOP columnist Jeff “Good Copy” Schapiro, instead of bold colors and creative new initiatives that would allow him to try to do what he wants.

Of course, that would require him to lead, not to simply react.  That would mean trying to get there “fustest with the mostest”.  That would mean actually standing up and stating what he believes…and I don’t think we are going to see that in the near future.

 Given his allegiance to shades of gray, I don’t think this should surprise anyone.

Conventions, continued…

The responses to my post on conventions are interesting and on point.  Conventions do eliminate the risk of crossover voting, they do keep the process in the hands of party loyalists, and the costs are generally less than a primary.  All true.

 But is all this worth the cost in terms of name identification and general ill will toward a candidate or his/her supporters?  Most important, a convention/mass meeting process  (hereinafter C/MM)  presents a multitude of ways to subvert the will of participants, to miminize their input, or to keep activists from participating.  Is it worth the cost? Is it worth choosing a nominating method that creates too many opportunities for one faction to prevent another faction from even participating? I think not.

That said, I do favor conventions when there is a need for a special election.  Then all the party building and motivating aspects of a convention really come to the fore. The 50th district contest in 2006 is a perfect example of how a C/MM can be used well.  A GOP convention was held, two strong candidates emerged, slugged it out nose to nose, and the party emerged in one piece to mount a strong campaign to hold a GOP seat in a year that was toxic to GOP candidates.

Win a primary, and the process allows candidates to build name ID.  C/MM are typically held over a long time period, and papers do not cover them the same way-name ID is not developed as well.  Some suggest that there is more of a possibility for ill will to develop toward a candidate in a primary than in a convention.  The difference is that in a C/MM the ill will is toward other activists, and then against their candidate.  It is one thing to be upset your guy lost-people will get over that.  It is another thing totally when the same activist who called you and “ignorant, pig-headed bum” then calls you to work the phone banks after your guy loses.  Unsure on that count?  Trust me…I have seen it happen.

So, if the process is being run as one stop shop (like the 50th), you already have plenty of room for dissension, hurt feelings, and general sowing the seeds of defeat.  Oh, and given that you have staff and mailing and entertainment expenses, the process is not as inexpensive as one might think.  But there is potentially more…what if the process is set up with local mass meeting electing delegates to a congressional, or statewide, or even state senate convention?

Given that I was a young adult during the golden age of GOP conventions, I volunteered on a lot of campaigns, and I got to see a lot of stuff.  I can tell you from personal experience that the potential for upsetting folks is vastly larger in a C/MM setting.  It goes beyond personality, it goes beyond ideology, and it goes beyond winning and losing.  It goes right to the ability to participate-another way it is less favorable than a primary.

First, you have to file to be a delegate.  Repeat, you have to file to be a delegate.  Primary-if you are registered to vote, you vote.  In a C/MM, if the credentials committee finds a way to bounce your delegate candidacy, and it is upheld, then you cannot participate.  Doesn’t happen often, but it can and does.

Next, once you have been deemed eligible you have to be elected a delegate to vote at the Convention or mass meeting (the latter typically is the term when you are selecting delegates to move to another level, say from county to a congressional or statewide convention).  If you are in the minority, you-a party activist, who works the polls and makes the phone calls-may be denied a chance to be a delegate to the next level…and if things get rough, maybe even at the local level.  This process of only denying supporters of a lesser candidate to be delegates is called slating…and it gets folks angry.  Having been slated off once or twice, I can attest to the anger from personal experience.

Finally,there is the more insidious practice of “instruction”.  In this practice, the majority at the mas meeting instructs the delegation to vote 100% for a candidate, no matter what the composition of the delegation.  So, imagine the following scenario:

District 2501 has six counties.  County A is by far the most GOP, and the most populous, and has 55% of the population for the district.  Because County A is the most populous and the most GOP, it actually casts 60% of the vote in the convention.  Delegates are selected in a local meeting.  John Doe and Jimmy Smith want the nomination, and Doe is a narrow favorite in County A.  Doe’s backers constitute 51% of the voters in the county mass meeting…they can, with their bare majority, instruct the county delegation to vote 100% for Doe.  Smith takes all the votes in counties B-F, but loses because of the instruction.

Those who discount that this can happen should look the Obenshain nomination fight in 2003.  Instruction does take place.

 My esteemed colleague TMC says in support of conventions that ”For me, there is something positively American about wheeling and dealing in a convention.” He may be right. But convention wheeling and dealing was always about pure, bold power and getting a nomination. It is brute force, and if one has to resort to any of many legal means to prevent people from voicing their choice in order to get your man nominated-then you do it. It is the nature of a convention, and the cost is too often disenfranchised delegates who go on to become disinterested party workers in the fall.

Conventions are more romantic, more interesting, and more colorful…they are also potentially far more divisive and destructive.  There is too much risk of people legally being kept from participating.

In places like the 28th, there is too much at stake…a primary should be used.

Thus endeth the lesson…

Conventions are still not the Silver Bullet

With the “No Mas” announcement by John Chichester, the political maneuvering in Virginia 28 has commenced as to whether a convention or primary should be used to nominate his potential successor.  This is a matter of no small controversy, as seen at NLS and BVBL.

I have long held conventions are at best a mixed bag of benefits. I find it interesting how the use of the convention in Virginia has changed, and how it is now being used to restrict the GOP rather than build it up. It also raises the question of whether a political organization can demand a party a line and still remain viable.

I was a young voter in the heyday of conventions. The battles of the 1977, 1978, 1981, and 1985 conventions could fill a poli-sci textbook with examples of political maneuvering. But at sum the GOP used conventions as a means to build the party, and felt potential for party growth outweighed the potential for bad blood from floor fights and delegate infighting.

As the GOP got stronger, and especially when the courts said delegate filing fees could not be charged, the GOP went strictly to primaries for statewide nominations. However, Virginia has not party registration, so the practice of crossover voting continued.

Now, in the 28th party chieftains have seized on the idea of using a convention to nominate apparently as a way to ensure ideological purity. They don’t want another Chich who proposes high taxes and the like. Fair enough.

But if the reports cited above are even half way correct then the party poo-bahs are choosing a convention not to build the party, but to make it more difficult for non-activist to participate in the nomination process. They want a convention to ensure a political purity, as opposed to primary that will help build toward a general election victory. They want a convention as a tool to restrict participation, and not as a tool to build the party.

Conventions are not a silver bullet that kills away all the awful crossover bogeymen. Candidates still have high expenses in contacting potential voters, and the bad blood that can be created often outweighs any practical benefit of keeping the process closed (see GOP in 1981 and 1985).

Moreover, can a party create ideological purity when it is not identified as having an ideology? One of the problems facing the Virginia GOP these days is that they don’t stand for anything beyond winning the next election. If you want candidates that hue to the party line, and if that line reflects a vision that the public will respond to, then isn’t the nomination better held in public with voters weighing in on the matter rather than in the closed, clammy confines of a convention hall?

The older I get, the less value I see in political conventions…and that is in the best of times. The situation in the 28th seems murky and muddy, and I get the feeling that the process is being managed by the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.  The party leadership seems more interested in nominating the anti-Chichester rather than finding the strongest candidate…and their choices could result in some very real bad blood.

If Poobahs down there botch the nomination process, then this seat could become competitive real fast.  But they will have stayed pure…and I hope they find solace in that.

Why John Chichester’s Retirement is Good for Virginia

As noted in the blogosphere and in the WaPo, State Senator John Chichester yesterday announced he would not run for reelection to the Virginia State Senate.

 There have been a variety of reactions, from ”about time” to “the sky is falling”.  I will say this about John Chichester.  He has always gone his way, and his way has always infuriated someone.  After all, this is the guy who abstained on the ERA vote in 1980 to prevent a tie vote at 20 which would allow Chuck Robb to cast a deciding 21st vote for the constitutional amendment.  I am sure that the same folks who now complain about his tax plans would have given him high fives and kudos for his in your face tactics back in the day.

Agree or disagree with him, The Chich knew his mind and what he wanted to do.  Senator Chichester always sailed by his own compass,  charted his own course, and accepted the cheers and the jeers that attended him.  He kept the faith, and did not waffle.  It is unfortunate that he chose to antagonize rather than reason with his counter parts in the House of Delegates, but his announcement yesterday struck a positive tone that compares well to the farewell rant from Russ Potts.

I hope John Chichester finds satisfaction in his career, happiness in his retirement, and that he is able to help his wife Karen continue her recovery from her 2002 stroke.

****************

By the same token, I suggest that this retirement is a good thing for Virginia.  A two party system, even using a big tent philosophy, requires two parties with distinct philosophies to be successful.  The last seven years has seen a serious drift from that concept.  The GOP and the Democrats have not declared what they stand for and then gone toe to toe on issues during recent elections. Instead, we have the majority of the GOP favoring position X, Chichester using his position as Senate Finance Chair and President Pro Temp of the Senate (both of which he had by virtue of his seniority and membership in the GOP) to push position Y, and the Democrats making vague mumblings of glittering generalities without offering specifics…a/k/a Position ???? .  The Democrats instead chose to draft on the Chichester proposals and hope the GOP dashed themselves on the rocks of intra-party intransigence, leaving Virginians so annoyed with the lack of progress that they would someday return a democratic majority.

This past year Democrats from Brian Moran to Dick Saslaw and The Gov constantly talk about commited sources and revenue streams, but they have not offered a real plan.  My delegate Dave Marsden is a good example. As noted in earlier RR posts, in consecutive issues of the Burke Connection Dave Marsden went on about what was needed and everyone was in agreement except for the GOP philistines in the House of Delegates.  Then a plan came out, and Marsden voted for it…oh, reluctantly to be sure, but he voted for it…and suddently we don’t hear so much about how to attack TRAMOB problems, because he and the Democrats have no real plan to offer.   But of course we knew that, or else The Gov would not be out and about trying to figure out what to offer up in his veto message.

Chichester’s retirement will force both parties to create a position on TRAMOB.  This issue is the major one facing the Commonwealth, and no longer can the Democrats hide behind Chichester’s seniority.  They will have to move from generalities to specifics, and actually create legislation to offer to the public.  By the same token, without Chichester and his seniority and chutzpah the Gang of Five-Four-now Three will face more pressure to join in a consensus GOP position.  Meanwhile, the GOP majority in the House of Delegates and the bulk of the Senate will no longer be able to moan about being bushwhacked by Chichester’s undermining their positions and refusing to meet with them.  The Va GOP delegation will have to take responsibility for being a true majority party, and not one hampered by a vocal and powerful splinter element.

John Chichester, no matter how gifted and combative a legislator he was, hampered two party government in Virginia.  He obstructed one party, and by doing so enabled the other party to do less than it should if it really wanted to lead.  His devotion to Virginia will be missed; his hamstringing of the legislative process will not.

It’s a new day out there…and I hope both the Virginia Republicans and the Virginia Democrats are equal to the task.