Whose Ox is Gored?

The folks down I-95 at Fred2Blue are complaining about how “gerrymandered” Virginia is.

Gerrymandering is an age old tradition. In fact, as I noted some time back the first partisan apportionment happened right here in Virginia. It is a practice as the “spoils system” as propounded by Andrew Jackson, and when a party is swept to power they hack at the other guys districts with gusto, and expect and accept the same in return.

I think we need non-partisan apportionment, and I think mid-decade apportionments should be done away with.. Until that happens, we have to make do with what we have.

But I confess to more than a bit of cynicism on this point…in fact, this report smells just a tad of Claude Rains in “Capablanca” professing to be shocked gambling is going on in Rick’s American Cafe…and then accepts his gambling winnings from the croupier.

I would be more impressed by this report and indignation if:

**The supporting report had not come out of the DLC, a Democratic support group;
**The report were not full of “might” and “if” and “perhaps” type wiggle words estimating how many more voters would vote if different redistricting methods were used.
**Tucked away in a note on page 16 the paper itself said “placement on this list should not be confused with a ranking of which states maintain systems most prone to creating non-competitive districts”…so that fourth worst stat Fred2Blue throws around about Virginia may not be all it is cracked up to be.
**I didn’t recall how in 1990 the Virginia Democracy redistricted the House so that 14 GOP incumbents were redistricted into seven house districts, and completely reshaped the old Virginia 7 to knock out a GOP incumbent.
**I didn’t recall how the Senate Democratic leadership shot down legislation in the 2008 session that would create bi- or non- partisan redistricting…presumably because they want to guarantee themselves a big chair at the table in 2010.

This is a game that has been going on for over two hundred years, and it isn’t going away any time soon…and if the DLC thinks it is a problem, then maybe they should get get guys like Dick Saslaw to send up legislation that would change the way things are done.

Gilmore Reaps What He Sows…

Former Governor and potential GOP senate nominee Jim Gilmore and his allies put the screws to Tom Davis last December by selecting a convention to pick the 2008 GOP nominee to replace John Warner.  Seems like Davis is getting the last laugh…and if not Davis, then certainly Lowell seems to be.

The WaPo reports that the candidacy of Delegate Bob Marshall is showing surprising strength. The article goes on to talk about how Marshall is showing unanticipated strength, especially in rural areas that were thought to be the backbone of a Gilmore effort.

An unbriefed observer may think “how can a 9-term delegate even begin to run even with a former AG and Governor?”

Good question…and although I think Gilmore will win the nomination, let me suggest some fertile ground where Marshall should be able to make hay.

1. Marshall is actually to the right of Gilmore in the Right-to-Life realm. Gilmore’s position essentially dovetails with Roe v. Wade, where a woman has the right to an abortion in the first trimester. Marshall is against abortion almost completely, although I think he does not oppose it if the life of the mother is in danger-sort of the Cuccinelli position.

2. Gilmore did not get the car tax eliminated, he changed the car tax calculation once he was elected, and state spending rose under him. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Gilmore bathed in the IT-explosion money that was coming into the state pre-2001 and the related filled state coffers. Gilmore talked a good game as a fiscal conservative, but did not really walk the walk.

3. The personal touch, where Marshall is a clear winner…

First off, Marshall is a sense a throwback legislator. As the WaPo story puts it:

Marshall, despite what some regard as his extreme views, is well-liked by moderates and even Democrats, who admire his collegiality, intellect and principled stands, even when they’re not popular. Marshall also charms his colleagues in a way that Gilmore does not.

An example of Marshall at work…when Bob first ran in the GOP primary back in 1991 in the new 13th district, he was going door-to-door when he caught my father puttering about in the yard. They started talking, and the subject hit abortion. My father is pro-choice, but as a physician has a scientific and also a libertarian perspective on it. Marshall could have gingerly extracted himself from a conversation with my father on the matter when it came up…instead they talked for at least thirty minutes. No minds were changed, but Dad came away thinking Marshall was bright and doctrinaire with out being domineering or insulting.

Gilmore acted as if any act of opposition was an act of treason or of evil. His popularity in the GOP has been based solely on the fact that he won elections, and not on any degree of personal magnetism or being liked. Now it looks like some of those nasty eggs he lobbed at other people are not hatching in ways he did not anticipate.

As noted, despite all this stuff, Gilmore will likely win a sizeable majority in the May convention. Of course, if the Tom Davis folks back Marshall to put the screws to Jim Gilmore, and if delegates who were done wrong by Gilmore at some point vote for Marshall, and folks who are unhappy they still pay a car tax vote against Gilmore, it could get interesting.

Funny thing, though…Gilmore would surely crush Marshall in a primary, the same primary he sought so fervently to avoid.

Well, as the good book says, that which ye sow so shall ye reap…

Corey Stewart: Do as I Say, Not as I Do

Less than a week after trumpeting his willingness to save the GOP, His Preeminence Corey Stewart shows his idea of governance may not play well in Richmond at the same time Democrats use his antics to puff up and support Governor Kaine’s budgetary fandango’s.

At the same time that GOP legislators in Richmond are fighting off The Gov’s attempt to raid the state “Rainy Day Fund” to fund his own favored policies, His Preeminence not only wants to do the same thing but has eaten up the fund in doing so. At a time when Prince William County is facing a significant budget shortfall and will likely raise taxes, His Preeminence and his board have decided they have to deplete the rainy day fund to come up with scratch necessary to fulfill his anti-illegal immigration program…and by deplete I mean leave $3K in the fund for emergencies until the end of the fiscal year.

Remember, this is the guy who criticized the Virginia Senate and the new majority for trying to push through The Gov’s plans along with his funding ideas. In fact, His Preeminence said “[The Democratic Senate] need someone down there who is going to beat up on them,” he said. “They need me down there to break the bottleneck.”

Sounds to me like he is doing the same thing as County COB at home as he is criticizing The Gov for doing in Richmond. Both pushed certain programs, in victory both are certain they have to be implemented immediately, and both are willing to slash and burn emergency reserves to make it happen.

They are both wrong-raiding the rainy day fund for pet personal projects is wrong as can be. What is more disturbing is that His Preeminence doesn’t see what he is doing as being in any way, shape, or form to being the same thing as he wants to stop in Richmond!

His actions prove there is a danger to sending the well packaged candidate who is callow and untested to higher levels of governance.  I suggested the other day that Mr. Stewart has only shown himself to be a One Trick Pony…and this move shows how much he is willing to do to keep that One Trick in play.

His Preeminence has adopted either “Sauce for the Goose, Sauce for the Gander” as his political credo, or “Do as I Say, Not as I Do”

Either way, he clearly is not ready for Prime Time, and should work on making his actions consistent with his statements.

Corey Stewart: Ego Run Amok

Corey Stewart, PW County BOC Chairman, is telling folks he will be a candidate for the GOP nod for Lt. Governor next year. Democrats seem to be less than petrified by the prospect, though this RK diary indicates how they might come after him.  Others think his candidacy is the perfect vehicle to get things moving in Richmond.

I think anyone ready to go statewide after winning one county wide general election-and not having served a full term in office- has a pretty healthy sense of self-worth. While he has also won a special election, the 2006 special election and 2007 general election victories against Sharon Pandak seem like bookends to the same campaign.

One cannot dismiss the hubris of using one general election victory as standing for a statewide run. It is not too far from living The Gov’s biography, who essentially leveraged winning a ward in Richmond to become a statewide candidate.

Still, his approach to the potential candidacy reeks of ego run amok.

First, in the WaPo article Stewart claims he is the “preeminent Republican” in Northern Virginia. This statement seems way over the top. First, John Warner and Tom Davis are still in office, and will be for several months. Second, has Mr. Stewart decided that somehow Congressman Frank Wolf (R-Va 10) doesn’t represent a Northern Virginia district?   Where exactly are the geographic limits of this Northern Virginia Mr. Stewart towers over?

Such comments reflect a devotion to personality and puffing more than a willingness to recognize reality and speak accordingly.

Second, apparently Mr. Stewart feels he is a shining combination of George Washington, Lee Atwater, and Tip O’Neill, the only person with the leadership skills, political moxie, and sharp elbows to make things happen in Richmond. Speaking of the state senate stopping immigration legislation and The Gov’s insistence on Pre-K funding, Stewart said:

“[The Democratic Senate] need someone down there who is going to beat up on them,” he said. “They need me down there to break the bottleneck.”

Wow…the democrats have had the Senate for about five weeks and things are that bad already? We may have a new standard set for hyperbole. 

Then again, maybe not. Discussing Northern Virginia politics, Brother Stewart goes on to say:

“Republicans got creamed in Northern Virginia in 2007, and I held Prince William together and kept it Republican,” Stewart said. “The party needs a shot in the arm. It’s gone stale. It needs vigorous leadership.”

Let’s set aside the obvious flaws in this statement, like how on Stewart’s watch the GOP lost a HOD seat in PWCo, or how The Cooch did not in fact get creamed in 2007. Let’s ignore how skilled candidates normally arrange for otherpeople to say things like this about them. Nonetheless, it is a generally true statement, which leads us to the next question…

Is Stewart ready to go to war with The Cooch? I know that SenKen has been mentioned for AG…which is not the same as LtGov. However, the GOP ticket cannot and will not have two candidates from Northern Virginia on a Gubernatorial ticket if at least one is not already elected to statewide office. Even then it is difficult. We of a certain age remember the 1981 ticket with State Attorney General Marshall Coleman (native of Staunton) running for governor with state Senator Nathan Miller (of Bridgwater) running for Lt. Gov. Since then the GOP has been fairly careful to create geographic balance on the ticket. You are not going to see both Stewart and Cuccinelli on the ticket, and if both file I predict you are going to see Stewart Lt.Gov delegates backing someone like Mark Obenshain for AG, and Cuccinelli loyalists will be backing someone from downstate against Stewart…remember, you heard it here first!

I don’t know how Stewart’s tenure as COB will look this time next year. He can attack Kaine on various funding issues, but Stewart above all is seen as the anti-illegal immigrant guy. Will that issue have legs in a statewide election 21 months from now? In the WaPo piece he goes on about other issues, but let’s not kid ourselves-Stewart got elected on the immigration issue, and he really has not proposed substantive legislation in other areas.

Those who love him for it are balanced by those who don’t. I was struck by the vitriol toward Stewart in the comments section of a Journal Messenger article about the closing of the Old Country Buffet.  The comments not only bemoan the closing of a favored restaurant, but attack Stewart’s policies-at one point labeled “the chest-thumping xenophobia of the Board of Supervisors”-as helping to cause the closing of the restaurant.

This doesn’t sound like the happy praise of a public servant who enjoys overwhelming public support.

I think Mr. Stewart’s comments are ill-timed, and his announcement at best premature.  To date he has been a one trick pony, riding the immigration issue as far as he can with brief breaks to bemoan transportation policy.  He places a heightened and myopic value on his role in party politics while ignoring the failures that have occurred on his watch as well as refusing the recognize the successes of others.  His comments make his nascent candidacy look less like a willingness to serve the public than a desire to feed an ego that has run amok.

If he plans to continue to lead with his ego and follow with his self puffing, then I feel safe saying he shouldn’t waste his time measuring the Lt. Governor’s office for new decorations.  First, comments like this don’t indicate he is on a successful path.  Second, if he is on a successful path, then the current LtGov accommodations are not large enough to house his ego, much less his staff.

2009 looks more and more interesting every day…

Huckabee at the Rubicon

In 49 BC Julius Caesar violated Roman law and crossed over the River Rubicon with his legions.  The act was considered treasonable and could have cost Caesar his life.  Instead he led his armies to victories over his enemies and became the leader of the Roman Empire.

In the wake of getting swept in yesterday’s Chesapeake Primaries, Mike Huckabee has reached his own Rive Rubivon, a line of demarcation between two clear courses of action that potentially lead to two different futures.

Huckabee is the only real opposition John McCain still faces.  Ron Paul and the like are still on the ballot, but together they got less than 10% of the vote yesterday.  Huckabee is the only candidate in the field who can slow McCain’s progress to the nomination, and the only one who can potentially defeat him primaries.

The Rubicon Huckabee faces can be summed up in the immortal words of The Clash: “Should I Stay or Should I Go?”

Huckabee has only a statistical chance at the nomination.  It would require sweeping the field with somewhere north of 65% in every remaining state.  Staying in only hurts McCain and makes him use resources now he could use in the general.  No matter how much Huckabee pops off bon mots like “I didn’t major in math, I majored in miracles.”  But Huckabee is now playing a very earthy and not very miraculous game, so he does not care about McCain’s finances-that is not part of the game he is playing.

Huckabee’s game is now has an end date of 2012 or 2016, not 2008.

He knows by now that it is highly likely that McCain will not approach him about the VP slot.  Bringing on an evangelical former minister is not likely to impress the independents that McCain will need in November.  Also, bringing Huckabee on board is not likely to increase conservative turnout.  Those that turn out will do so because they think the demo nominee is so much worse than McCain they cannot sit it out (perhaps because of Supreme Court nominations, etc.), and those that think a liberal Democrat is preferable to a “moderate” Republican will sit it out.

No, Huckabee wants to emerge from this as the new face and voice of GOP conservatism, the new Reagan.  It will help if he has enough oomph to help write the platform or get the keynote speaking spot, but the big goal is to come out of this as the voice of conservatism for 2012.  Staying in the field, building name ID and an organization and potentially more primaries, seemingly only makes hims stronger for 2012.  As Time reported:

At a press conference [Saturday [February 9] morning, one reporter blurted out what has become for Huckabee a comfortable truth. “Governor, basically you have nothing to lose by staying in,” she called from the back of the scrum. Huckabee paused. “Ah,” he said, before smiling. “No. I don’t guess I do.”

That goal has pushed Huckabee to the Rubicon he now faces.  How much longer can he stay in the race before he is seen as less a serious candidate who represents a segment of the party and more a malicious spoiler who is in for ego and to weaken McCain enough that the GOP loses in 2008 allowing Huckabee another shot in 2012?

Another consideration…how many people are voting for him less because they support him but as a protest vote against McCain? Can he safely assume that 40% of the GOP in Virginia supported him because he was their pick, or because he was the best option left whose name did not start with “McCain”?

If he has not come to the river, he can certainly see it from where he currently stands. Much of his future options depeneds on what he does in the next month. If he stays in too long, and McCain loses, then foru years from now there will be all types of GOP who will forget the tribal wars of 2008 but will remember the idea that Huckabee stayed in too long and damaged McCain.

It is smart politics to play the good sport and do now what he will eventually have to do, anyway. Here is how I think he will do it. I think he will announce prior to Texas that he is suspending his campaign. That way his supporters in Texas can still vote for him, and frankly scoring 40% or more for a suspended campaign will be tremendously impressive. He already has done well enough to ensure himself a prime time speech.

Enjoy the speech, and take notes, because we haven’t seen the last of Mike Huckabee…but his prospects for the future are going to ride in no small part on how  well and how soon he chooses to cross his own presidential rubicon.

Huckabee is bothering me at home…

Earlier today I wrote how on Sunday I got a personal phone call from a Huckabee supporter from Alabama, how nice she was, and what a good impression she made?

Apparently that was the lucky phone call.

Unbeknown to me, my wife caught a robo-call from Huckabee on Saturday.  Earlier today I got a push poll phone call clearly fronting for Huckabee and seemingly similar to ones referenced at Virginia Virtucon.  Tonight I got another robo-call, this one urging all pro-life supporters to vote for Huckabee.

So much for the grassroots effort of the Huckabee campaign…

Huckabee cannot win the nomination without lightning striking. If he gets whacked tomorrow in the Chesapeake Primaries (a term I prefer to the Potomac Primaries), then he needs to do a Romney. It is better for him and his future prospects if he not have the reputation as a spoiler, and it is better for his chances of the VP nod in 2008.

Obama and Hillary should look to Eisenhower for “Fair Play”

As I got ready for church this AM I caught the talking heads keep using terms like “fair play” and “right thing”.  The more they talked the more I realized that potentially the key lesson to who wins the Democratic nod lies in who can emulate Dwight Eisenhower.

Both Clinton and Obama hava unusual delegate problems.  Hillary is in the lead because she has a large edge in democratic “superdelegates”, people like past presidents, VP, sitting governors, senators, congressmen, etc.  Obama argues that superdelegates should vote according to the primary/convention process in their state…which means that potentially a lot of superdelegates who are with Hillary would shift to Obama.  Interestingly, this would compel Ted Kennedy to vote for Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

Hillary, on the other hand won in both Michigan and Florida.  Both states voted according to scheduling by the resepective state legislatures and not by the state party.  However, the dates were in advance of Super Tuesday, and did not have the exemption that South Carolina had-with the result that the states delegates to the Democratic National Convention will not be counted.

Both candidates have rules they want overturned or implemented.  I suggest they look back to 1952 and emulate the Dwight Eisenhower campaign.

In 1952 Eisenhower was running against Ohio US Senator Robert Taft for the nomination.  Taft was the heavy favorite of the conservative wing of the party.  This was especially true in the South, where the conservatives loved Taft but had kept the GOP small so as to maximize their share of the spoils if the GOP won the election.

They did not count on great up-swells of support for Eisenhower throughout the South, and some extremely capable organizers who came to the for to nominate the general.  In state after state old guard support for Taft allowed delegates to be seated through chicanery and dishonesty.

GOP rules allowed the submitted delegations to vote until the credentials report was approved.  Contested delegates would potentially be allowed to vote on their own legitimacy, which would lead to a raft of pro-Taft delegates being selected and handing him the nomination.

The Eisenhower campaign challenged the credentials of several delegations and produced proof of their dishonesty.  Next came a motion that overturned party rules and disallowed contested delegates to vote on their own seating.  This was called the “Fair Play” motion, and led to enough pro-Eisenhower delegations replacing the Taft slates sent for the by their states that by evening Eisenhower had won the nod.

Eisenhower, who was as much after power as Taft, was able to win the “Fair Play” vote because the vote itself was cast as a vote for honesty over dishonesty for-literally-fair play and an even playing field.

I think for Hillary or Obama to compel the state party to do what they each want, they have to be able to cast it as a vote not about process or procedure but about fundamental fairness.  At present, I don’t see that Obama has real good chances of doing that.

Given that the Superdelegates were created as a way to offset popular passion for a candidate who was unelectable and bring sanity to the process by giving the elected official branch of the party a voice in the selection,  it seems odd to think that the party will now-after the game has begun-turn around and say that Superdelegates had to vote to reflect the primary/caucus vote in their respective states.  The Superdelegates were chosen so they could exercise political judgement…I don’t think you can make a fair play argument that says they should not be allowed to do exactly what they were selected to do.

Hillary seems to have a better chance, even though it would amount to changing the rules after the game has started.  She can argue that it is wrong to disenfranchise entire states.  Penalize, deduct delegate votes, etc., but don’t throw them out (or the Hillary Delegates!)…especially since the state parties were simply complying with state law.  This choice seems much more likely to carry the day on Fair Play vote.

Ultimately all the above may seem like bilge, but the reporters who talk are reporting Obama and Hillary talking about challenges based on the  items discussed above.  If the credentials vote is phrased as a morality, then whoever placed the challenge will have an increased chance.

And, if neither passes?  Then we shall see…

But I think the campaigns should reread the accounts of the 1952 GOP convention, and see what needs to be added to their arguments to make them more about “fair play” and less about “I need votes”.

Live Blogs-Democrats answer questions posed, Gilmore…not so much

Blogs can serve as a method for candidates to speak directly to the public, and leave those answers on the record as long as the blog stays in action.  Virginia blogs have been quite adept at the “live blog” format, where questions are posted prior to and during a blog session, and the candidate answers the questions.  RK pioneered the form, and a search of their site shows at least 30 live blogs over the past two years. NLS had on Judy Feder, Phil Forgit, and on the GOP side Too Conservative live blogged with Jim Gilmore last week.

Having read through the transcripts of each event, I noticed distinct differences in the way the candidates handled the questions.

Feder and Forgit handled the questions as coming from voters, and answered questions as posed with a minimum of evasion although answers did have their unique campaign spin. Gilmore answered questions as if they were coming from media reps, and too often danced and evaded.

Example:

Question: When Mark Warner took office he never spent a dime on transportation. As Governor, how much did you spend on transportation?
Gilmore: We increased transportation expenditures without raising taxes. I supported public-private partnerships to get work done on roads. I went to work to reform VDOT, placing an Inspector General in that office. I reformed environmental procedures for road projects. When I became Governor there was no money, any where, to build the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. I went to Senator Warner and the Democratic Governor of Maryland. We obtained the money to build the bridge. We also placed the Mixing Bowl on a priority basis and did extensive road projects across the state. Former Governor Warner raised taxes, after promising not to do so, but none of that money went to transportation despite the Democratic Party’s complaints.

Note the question…and note the dearth of even an approximation of how much money was spent on transportation during his term.

Governor Gilmore had several questions on the Car Tax, which he decided to answer with one general answer.  I will note that I posted the following for him:

 Governor Gilmore-

Two questions, please:

Question 1:
Your original car tax reduction focus was based on car value. The final format was based on the amount of car tax the owner paid.

I have heard over the years that the Western part of the state considers the ultimate form of the reduction a giveaway to NoVA, where presumably there is wider ownership of more expensive cars. This charge was recently revoiced by Brandon Bell on his blog.

Do you think this a fair criticism? Why did you change your focus?

Question 2:
You ran for governor touting elimination of the car tax. Ultimately there was a sizeable, but not complete, car tax rollback.

As a practical matter, how do you plan to deal with the very simple campaign attack that you promised to get rid of the car tax, but didn’t?

No response.  Now remember, you have a former G.O.P. member of the state senate blogging that western Virginia feels that Gilmore campaigned on one car tax idea, installed another, and in doing so boondoggled Northern Virginia.  Gilmore responded generally by saying no region was shortchanged…but this is not the the question asked.  The question was “how do you fight a perception?”, and this was ignored.  The second question was not even approached

I do not live in Va 1 or Va 10, and if I did I would not be voting for either of the F’s…but I found their live blog answers to be much more informative and responsive than did Mr. Gilmore’s…and therein is the conundrum I see coming my way in 2008.

I don’t like the likely choices for Senator from Virginia in 2008.  Mr. Gilmore’s analysis of his term in office suggest he has his own reality, and the prevarications of Mark Warner both on budgetary matters and in dealing with Democratic candidates mark him as someone who has little regard for the truth.  Hopefully both will change their way and measure up to what we need from our representatives.

How will we know?  Keep an eye on they answer on live blogs…that may be the best place to start!

GOP Loyalty Oath-Silly and Ridiculous

Todays WaPo announces the Virginia GOP will have a loyalty oath in place for next years presidential primary. The language will be:

“I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for President.”

RPV Executive Director Charles Judd justified the decision:

“We feel we need the right to say to someone figuratively, ‘If you intend to support the Democrat candidate in the fall general election, you probably shouldn’t help us pick our candidate,’ “

And there, in a nutshell, is the recent history of the Virginia GOP-a reasonable idea carried out badly.

The reasonable idea is having party affiliated folks choose the nominee without the time and travel burdens of a convention or the potential for unreasonable influence by democrats voting in the GOP primary.

Since the GOP is already going to have a convention to choose a senate nominee, I think the GOP should choose its delegates at the State convention. But that is another topic for another time.

The real problem with this solution for a reasonable idea is that it is silly and ridiculous.  All that is needed is destructive and they hit the trifecta.

Many years ago I was putting in some volunteer time at the Vienna Jaycee X-mas Tree lot. As we closed up, I commented to my friend BFIV that they certainly had heavy security on their trees, and that short of adding concertina wire and machine gun nests it seemed exceptionally secure. BFIV agreed, and noted it had cost quite a bit to put up the fencing.  He then sighed and said it was a heavy price to pay to protect tempted people.

His answer perplexed me. He explained that on public sales projects like this there were honest people, dishonest people, and tempted people. The honest would never dream of taking something that didn’t belong them. The dishonest would just cut through the wire-if their cost benefit ratio warranted it, they would find a way to steal a tree. Then there are the tempted folks, those who would normally give no thought to stealing, but who might succumb to temptation if the trees were left unguarded.

I think the same is true here…those that want to vote GOP will, whether they be party loyalists or democrats who want to affect the outcome.  The only people who will be put off by this are those who are not dead set in their intentions.  To that end, this plan is silly.  It won’t truly do what it is intended to do…and if that is the case, why do it? 

If the GOP wants party registration, introduce the legislation.  If not, chuck the whole oath concept.  Besides, loyalty oaths carry the faint echo of McCarthyism.  Such oaths have been tried before by both parties, and never successfully.  Gosh, if you have to do it, use a different term, like “Participation Pledge”.

Oh, and remember those folks who are put off by the loyalty oath?  That is where it gets ridiculous.  These voters, likely independents, are folks you want to attract.  These are voters showing an inclination toward the GOP that might blossom into more consistent voting with the GOP…except they are being cut off from participation.

I really do not see how throwing up roadblocks to keep independents from voting in GOP primaries helps grow the party…and growing the party is what needs to be done.  Promoting participation in the GOP presidential primary is the constructive course of action-not restricting it.

H’mmmm….dang, maybe they DID hit the trifecta

Bolling refuses Shermanesque statement, leaves draft open…

Virginia Lt. Governor Bill Bolling just released an announcement regarding speculation on his being candidate for the First Congressional District seat left open by the tragic death of US Representative Jo Ann Davis:

 “Over the past several days, I have received a great deal of encouragement from business and political leaders throughout Virginia and in Washington, DC to consider running for the United States House of Representatives in the First Congressional District.  I am deeply flattered by their belief that I would make a good Congressman and serving in the United States Congress would be a tremendous honor.”

“However, as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia and as President of the Senate of Virginia, my full attention is currently directed toward the upcoming General Assembly elections and doing everything I can to make certain that we retain our Republican majorities in the State Senate.  Given the importance of the position I currently hold at this critical time in Virginia history, it would not be appropriate for me to consider running for any other political office.”

Frankly, I expected something a little more Shermanesque from Mr. Bolling regarding.  There is a difference between:

a) I am not, and will not, be a candidate for Congress, and
b) “it would not be appropriate for me to consider running for any other political office.”

Color me cynical, but I don’t see that this language rules out responding to a “spontaneous” draft for the office…a tool that has been used by politicians of both parties for years to create the image that they are running not because they want to but in answer to a public demand. Bolling does need to stay in the Lt.Gov position, and as a party leader it would have been better to offer a definitive statement to remove himself from the mix completely.

I was really expecting something along the lines of “If nominated I will not run, and if elected I will not serve”.

Oh, those were the days…