Friday, March 31, 2006
Even more entertaining is that the meeting was scheduled here at all. In a case in which I attempted to intervene on behalf of a worker in 2004/05, hotel management was found guilty of unfair labor practices (be forewarned; this is a .pdf file).
Now, I'm not sure, but shouldn't "union solidarity" preclude union officials from meeting at hotel where management has been found to have violated union rights?
Or does union boss comfort trump everything?
Two thoughts: first, I wonder if they're going to be using people like the courier I ran into in the office of the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco? He was in full bondage gear, including a dog collar.
Second, I guess they figure that they've already got the votes of those you'd find in bathhouses and homosexual bars.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Abdur Rahman, the Afghani man who was facing a death sentence because of his Christian faith, has arrived in Italy, where he has been granted asylum. It is gratifying that this man, facing martyrdom for his faith, is now safe.
It seems that some in the Muslim religion would apply the same rules that I see some unions trying to apply.
While I certainly had my disagreements with Harry over his surrender to Governor Marky Mark's unnecessary tax increase, I will always fondly remember what was probably our most intimate interaction, one aside from the typical gladhanding at GOP meetings and conventions.
I had been persuaded to run for the School Board seat for Dumfries in 1995, so naturally, I was making the rounds with elected Republicans, seeking advice and financial support. I went over to MIFCO's (Manassas Ice and Fuel Company) office in Manassas, where I met with Harry, who owned the company.
It was like a flashback to my youth. Harry was there, of course, but so was Mattie, Harry's wife, helping out. And with that, and the smell of fuel oil (it is said that smell is perhaps the strongest memory trigger), I couldn't help but remember my paternal grandfather, Thomas Young, who was also an oil distributor in Logansport, Indiana. My grandmother, Irene, also used to help out in the office.
I can't remember all that we discussed, though I know that Harry was kind enough to write me a check for my campaign. But I will always have fond memories of the man that go beyond that conversation and his generosity.
UPDATE: Sadly, some of those who claim to have been Harry's friends and supporters demonstrate their class in many ways.
UPDATE 2: Vince at TC has the details on Harry's funeral arrangements.
UPDATE 3: I'm tempted to disable the links in the first UPDATE. The name-calling anonymous/pseudonymous cowards are in full attack mode against anyone who might run for Harry's seat, and I'm loathe to give them exposure here. It's truly pathetic that they are already picking over his bones. They even feel the need to attack me, even though I've discussed the issue of a successor not at all, and have endorsed no one (haven't even been asked to). However, cockroaches scurry when light is shone upon them. One can only hope for a like result.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
RICHMOND (AP) - Harry J. Parrish, who headed the state's most powerful tax-writing panel in the General Assembly, died today. He was 84.
Parrish had been in intensive care at Prince William Hospital for about three weeks, suffering from pneumonia. His death was announced by Sen. John Chichester during a meeting of the Senate Finance Committee on Capitol Square.
Parrish, the House of Delegates' oldest member, was in his 13th term from Manassas.
Visit www.PotomacNews.com and www.ManassasJM.com for more information.
RIP, Harry. Condolences to Mattie, Hal, and the rest of his family.
Monday, March 27, 2006
As the first commenter at NLS noted, one wonders if this hackers knows what Chad's day job is, and whether this isn't the worst decision he's made in a long, long time.
The least I can do is link back and respond in kind.
Besides, aside from extirpation, I was looking for a way to move the post below down sufficiently that it was not the first thing people logging on would see.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
The problem? He's created them in Illinois, and they're trying to raise our taxes.
On the other hand, it's easy to understand why some Illini would want to raise the taxes of Virginians. It's certainly one way to diminish the competitive advantage that Virginia currently enjoys over high-tax, pro-forced-unionism Illinois.
Reuters, which won't even call terrorists "terrorists," is now attempting to influence the American judicial system. This strikes me as a despicable attempt to force Justice Scalia's recusal from the detainee case. Hopefully, Justice Scalia will resist the inevitable efforts of the chattering classes to force his recusal.
UPDATE: More on the Scalia speech in the WaPo article here. And driving in today, the drumbeat for recusal has begun on C-SPAN.
Friday, March 24, 2006
| You are a |
You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test
With that having been said, the test isefle exhibits a pretty clear far-Left bias in the way the questions are asked. The fact that two-thirds of those taking it admit to having voted for the Poodle demonstrates that this site caters to Lefty types.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of Chad, and without rendering legal advise (I am not licensed to practice in Virginia), it seems that the Prince William County Police may be playing the same game that I witnessed in Fairfax a few years ago.
I had been driving to work on the HOV lanes on I-95, and after topping the hill into Fairfax County (with three in the car), I was pulled over by one of Fairfax's finest. I remain convinced to this day that I was pulled over because the officer couldn't see my young son in the back seat. Nevertheless, I had been pulled over, so they had to justify it somehow, and issued what I believed to be a completely illegitimate speeding ticket.
Now never mind the question of County police running such an operation on I-95 --- just past the County line, where almost none of those cited would be County residents --- in the middle of rush hour. Never mind the sneaking suspicion that it was a fundraiser designed to ensnare individuals who were unlikely to travel to the County Courthouse in Fairfax to challenge the tickets issued.
In any case, about a month later, I appeared, and watched a fascinating spectacle (when your name is "Young" you're near the end of the docket, and get to watch a lot). I learned that a similar operation had been run on U.S. Route 1. And one gentleman got up, and defended himself. He was not a lawyer, but did a quite creditable job cross-examining the officer testifying, demonstrating that he was not the one running the radar, even though he had signed the ticket. After demonstrating beyond any doubt that the Commonwealth could not make its case with admissible testimony --- the officer's testimony was hearsay, because he was merely relating a radar reading taken by another officer --- the judge asked the individual if he had anything else to say. Of course, I was sitting there think "Shut up! Don't say another word! You've won!" Nevertheless, this heretofore very competent amateur stated "Well, your Honor, I was perfectly willing to come in here and admit that, yes, I was probably going about 10 miles an hour over the limit, with the flow of traffic, but not the 20 miles an hour over the limit for which I was cited. However, the officer's testimony was hearsay, and inadmissible."
Of course, any lawyer reading this can guess what happened next. The judge very kindly said "Well, sir, the Court appreciates your honesty. I find you guilty of going 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and fine you ...."
Later defendants caught on fast. After the officer (who was the same officer who cited me on I-95) went through a few similarly bruising cross-examinations, my turn finally arose. I stood up, wearing my lawyer suit and carrying my briefcase and legal pad, and approached the docket. At that point, the officer decided that he wasn't going to throw good time after bad, and said "Uh, your Honor? We've decided that we're not going to proceed against Mr. Young at this time." The Court: "Mr. Young, you're free to go."
One reason that I'll never be a judge is that because, at this point, I would have sua sponte (on the Court's own motion) vacated every conviction (even for those who had not defended) entered on tickets issued by this officer on that day. And I might even have tried to find some way to sanction the officer or the County police for wasting the Court's time in pursuing these cases, and abusing those defendants who had to appear, or didn't appear because of the time involved, by wasting their time on convictions that could not be sustained.
Which brings me to the Dale Boulevard speed trap. At least four officers were there, but apparently only one was running a radar.
I'd love to know what happens to the people cited there when these cases reach General District Court in Manassas. Hopefully some will have the knowledge and/or wit to insure that the Commonwealth can make its case.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
It seems that someone besides my assistant and Willis is paying attention. It seems that Republitarian thinks me one of the twenty-five most influential Virginia bloggers. Plenty of room for improvement, though.
And Ben still thinks this blog only rates as Silver, &$%* it!
Anyway, this also gives me a good excuse to update the blogroll. Didja ever notice how most leftie bloggers (with some exceptions) never put Conservative bloggers on their blogrolls?
I guess that's what you have to do when you can't win the debate.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
It seems that our friend Vince over at Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Conservative," has decided to take his blog in a different direction, has thrown off all of his other contributors, and may have claimed their prior posts as his own.
Welllllll, it seems that his fellows, or at least Jim Riley, Not O'Reilly, are somewhat miffed. Sooooo, they've reclaimed the original blogger website, on which the changes are coming fast and furious.
This is all very confusing. I finally got around to linking to Vince's new website on the blogroll today. It appears under the Liberal and/or Democrat blogs as Sean Connaughton's Cult of Personality ... er, "Too Conservative." However, the Old Dominion Blog Alliance name links to the original blogger website.
I only have one question: Who gets custody of Chairman Sean and Marty?
UPDATE: This is gonna be fun! [gleeful chuckle]
UPDATE 2: Maybe there should be a rule against blogging after 11 p.m. It seems that most of the flames have been deleted, threats of full disclosure removed, and an accord reached. Here's what's now up at the original TC Blogger site:
Jay Hughes (Not Not Jay Hughes)
Scott Hirons (Hirons)
UPDATE 3: Sophrosyne of NoVA Townhall has a few salient points here. I don't know if he's correct; I didn't want to speculate (take that! Vince; who is it who traffics in gossip?), but his points and probably more elaborate understanding of the cryptic references seem logical.
UPDATE 4: As entertaining as this all is, I want to be fair. It seems that Vince's explanation for the fact that all prior posts were attributed to him was that, in Word Press, when a contributor is cashiered (or leaves; whatever) you must either change all of the bylines to one of those remaining, or delete the posts. Vince chose the former course. So he didn't "claim their prior posts as his own," so long as you understand the context.
Put another way, Conservatives experienced childhood when they were children; Liberals, while initially precocious, never grow up.
Put yet another way, whiny, insecure kids will eventually grow up and become Conservatives, while people who don't whine as children will do nothing but whine as adults.
Of course, the study was done on children in Berserkely, where their idea of patriotism is not allowing the flag to touch the ground while you burn it, and that's pretty much all you need to know about the biases of the so-called researchers.
With little or no fanfare (it's certainly nothing to brag about), our own Governor Timmy (hat tip to Jim Riley at TC ... er, Virginia Virtucon, ... er, whatever, for the image) is launching his crusade for higher taxes. Got this late yesterday from Delegate Scott Lingamfelter, and it is reprinted with permission.
Some of my colleagues in the House of Delegates have received a report concerning automated phone calls from Moving Virginia Forward, a liberal high-tax group. Reportedly, the calls encourage the recipient to support the Governor's effort to fund transportation (though not mentioning taxes), and criticizes the House approach, which they claim will take money away from priorities like "early childhood education." This is absolutely false in every regard. The calls conclude by asking the recipient to contact their legislator, giving them the Delegate's number.
If you learn of anyone receiving one of these calls - or any similar call, please e-mail me--or your delegate if I do not represent you--with the details at your earliest convenience.
Army (Retired) , Colonel US
Delegate 31st District (Prince William - Fauquier)
Virginia House of Delegates
Too bad Governor Timmy wasn't honest with the voters last year. Had he announced his plan for another massive tax increase, it is doubtful that we would be talking about Governor Timmy.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Behavior like this takes her from the realm of even the fig leaf of being a reporter, into the realm of commentator, and the White House should respond accordingly by pulling her credentials. She certainly has the right to her opinions and views, however ill-informed, but she doesn't possess the right to berate the President of the United States.
At least David Gregory had the excuse that he was dealing with a press flak.
Monday, March 20, 2006
From a personal perspective, among my first interactions with her was her criticism that my columns should be more focused on local issues. So far as I could tell from my colleagues, no one else was given this mandate, to it may well be that she was setting me up for an excuse for discontinuing my columns. Sadly (for her), I was able to stave off her efforts against me when I was able to focus locally. It wasn't until four years later that she persuaded management to discontinue my column, upon the excuse that I was "boring and repetitive," notwithstanding the fact that no local columnist generated more letters to the editor.
Any notion that "balance" is desired by Pot. News management should have been thoroughly dispelled in today's edition, in which a story appears discussing anti-war protesters interfering with traffic on Saturday and Sunday.
Here's one telling excerpt:
Many people honked their horns and gave thumbs up in support for the group's message during their two hours holding signs in the blistering cold at the intersection of Sudley Road and Rixlew Lane.
The cost in lives wasn't Harms' only concern, though. She contacted National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan organization, to find out what the cost was for Fredericksburg, roughly $17 million; Manassas, $52.4 million; and Woodbridge, $40.4 million.
"The taxpayers should know how their money is being spent," she said. "Money that could be better spent elsewhere."
Not everybody was copacetic with the group's message, though. Several people shouted opposing remarks -- remarks that included that the group was damaging troop morale.
"The negative response is just as good as the positive," Reynolds said. "That means people are thinking about this."
Thus, while lip-service is paid to the negative response, the positive response is described as "many people," while the negative response is merely described as "not everybody" and "several people." Moreover, the far-Left National Priorities Project -- a group whose Board is made up, of among others, ACORN refugees, advocates for the so-called "living wage," and union activists -- is described as "non-partisan." Yeah. Just like MoveOn.org.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
I would respect Peace Activist more if they ever wore a uniform and at one time went to war. My dad became a peace activist after winning the Silver Star. He saw war first hand and then dedicated his life towards peace. Many peace activist have rarely left the comfort of a college campus. This is the same reason why I could not vote for Bush. Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney...all chicken hawks..Go McCain! Go Kerry!!! Go Gore!!! Mr. Young...where did you serve your country?And you know what? I thought it'd be fun, too. After all, why bother actually to address another's arguments? Let's just dismiss his arguments because he or she has never met some arbitrary and capricious --- or better yet, convenient --- standard for authority?
I would respect abortion advocates more if they ever had an unwanted pregnancy.
I would respect Mothers Against Drunk Driving more if they'd ever had to go somewhere with a load on.
I would respect Teddy Kennedy on employee "rights" more if he'd ever had a real job.
I would respect [Lawmaker A] more if he'd ever practiced law.
I would respect pro-lifers more if they'd ever killed someone.
I'd respect tax advocates more if they'd ever actually paid more in taxes than they consumed.
I'd respect anti-globalization advocates more if they'd ever run a business.
I'd respect public welfare advocates more if they'd ever personally aided someone.
You can play, too!
Friday, March 17, 2006
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg assailed the court's congressional critics in a recent speech overseas, saying their efforts "fuel" an "irrational fringe" that threatened her life and that of a colleague, former justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Addressing an audience at the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Feb. 7, the 73-year-old justice, known as one of the court's more liberal members, criticized various Republican-proposed House and Senate measures that either decry or would bar the citation of foreign law in the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings. Conservatives often see the citing of foreign laws in court rulings as an affront to American sovereignty, adding to a list of grievances they have against judges that include rulings supporting abortion rights or gay rights.
She then quoted from what she said was a "personal example" of this: a Feb. 28, 2005, posting in an Internet chat room that called on unnamed "commandoes" to ensure that she and O'Connor "will not live another week."
It seems that Justice Ginsburg has forgotten the absurdity with which the Great Prevaricator's effort to blame Conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing was appropriately greeted.
One could ask what it is about Liberals and criticizing America from overseas, but it's hardly surprising that Ginsburg would do so in light of her affinity for foreign laws as the basis for American constitutional decisionmaking. But I think the most appropos response is of hoary vintage, from one of Justice Ginsburg's predecessors, noting that, if her decisions provoke some to call for violence, it is not the peaceful, if passionate critics of those decisions who should be blamed:
It is said that this manifesto was more than a theory, that it was an incitement. Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us it had no chance of starting a present conflagration. If in the long run the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138 (1925) (Holmes, J., dissenting). In short, as the Bard of Avon once wrote, "The fault lies not within the stars, but within ourselves."
Of course, then there's the other, more flippant comment by the Great Dissenter: "We're not finally because we're right; we're right because we're final."
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Thomas gets it exactly right about these folks, while conceding (which I won't) their own appellation as "peace activists":
Strange thing about these peace movements: they rarely mobilize to oppose the killing, torture and imprisonment practiced by dictators. It is only when their own country attempts to end the oppression that the activists become active against America, not the initiators of evil. Peace, like happiness, is a byproduct, not a goal that can be unilaterally attained. Peace happens when evil is vanquished.I couldn't help being reminded of a George F. Will column from the Eighties, when some wag --- probably the WaPo's Coleman McCarthy --- gave a speech at a military academy (I think it was the Air Force Academy) advocating federal creation and funding of a "peace academy." Will rightly noted that the United States already had three "peace academies." One was on the banks of the Hudson, another on the shores of the Chesapeake, and the third was where McCarthy spoke.
Thomas got it exactly right:
Peace "activism" may make its practitioners feel good, or validate their belief they are doing the will of God. But evil cannot be accommodated. Evil must be defeated if peace on Earth is to exist. That Fox and his colleagues could not, or would not see this, is most tragic of all.UPDATE: Correction made. Thanks to Not Ben.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark office won't allow him to trademark which, as the WaPo describes, "rapper Jay-Z famously rhymed with 'Jigga.'"
This is political correctness run amok. Is the word vile and offensive? Certainly. Is the Patent and Trademark office acting within its mandate to refuse trademark protection to words that are scandalous or that disparage a particular group? Again, certainly.
But leave it to Pravda-on-the-Potomac to sacrifice accurate reporting on the alter of political correctness.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Never mind that Feingold's basis for doing so is based upon the most elaborate slurs of the moonbat far Left; what is most offensive about Feingold's efforts are that they are wholly unconstitutional.
In short, by adopting what purports to be a less radical step (to paraphrase and update my grandfather, a censure resolution and four bucks will get you a cup of Starbucks), Feingold is demonstrating his lack of interest in constitutional processes, and is behaving less respectably than others in the moonbat far Left, who at least have the wit to rely upon the Constitution, and call for impeachment.
With this action, Feingold --- who is rumored to have presidential ambitions (what Senator doesn't?) --- has done Republicans and Democrats alike the courtesy of demonstrating that he is wholly unfit to be President. Once again, an anti-constitutionalist attempts to masquerade as a "moderate," and fails miserably.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Obviously, when my services were terminated, the Pot. News took a step down. But at this point, the Pot. News would take a step up by becoming a tabloid.
Today, they ran another letter from far Left moonbat Tony Ares, of Woodbridge, who made a number of posts here last week. And last month, I wrote about his missive to the Pot. News which declared that Conservative supporters of school choice really were using it as a "thinly veiled excuse to reinstate Jim Crow," and to "indoctrinate [our] children with old bigotry."
Well, Tony's at it again. Today, he attacked a Pot. News column by Ken Concannon, which had criticized other far Left moonbats for comparing President George W. Bush to Hitler. Ares' comment?
Mr. Concannon is correct. Bush is not Hitler ... yet. The Neo-Conservatives are not the Nazis ... yet. By understanding historically how fascism begins though, we stop its growth in the present.Tony apparently needs to go back to school. A good private one, not a government one. One where he can learn the difference between fascism and National Socialism. Between reasonable limits on civil liberties in time of war (far fewer than imposed by FDR in World War II) and real and serious erosions of civil liberties. About listening to your telephone calls without a warrant and listening in on the telephone calls of foreign terrorists. About how jobs "going overseas" has nothing to do with fascism, or the nationalism that it represents (indeed, complaints about globalization are a lot closer to nationalistic fascism and/or Naziism than support for free trade and free markets).
It isn't that the media loves him. It isn't his ability to speak to the Republican base, or his rock-ribbed Conservative credentials. Or even that media insiders have declared him the most likely GOP nominee.
Nope. It's that Dems are starting to say that he's stupid, or an "empty suit."
If there's a more accurate predictor of Republican electoral success than that, I don't know it.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
In light of their support for this question, shouldn't Conservatives ask prospective Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "Spit, or swallow?"
UPDATE: Upon further reflection, I really don't want to know.
UPDATE 2: Well, it seems Vince wants to stir the pot, too. Given his number of hits, I suppose I should be grateful. Oh, and Shaun has it exactly right in his comments (hence, showing it to my friends here). I'm reminded of a conversation I had a number of years ago, with a wonderful old lady named Ruth Fry. Long-time PWC Republicans will remember her as a Gold Star mother who, at 88, tragically lost her life in a traffic accident on Minnieville Road, broadsided by a truck going too fast just after George Allen's election as Governor in 1993 (an event that made her giddy). One time, my wife and I were giving Ruth a ride to a political event, and completely out of the blue, she raised the issue of condom distribution in the schools. Ruth was a few years older than my grandmother (still kickin' like an Army mule at the time, at 79), and it was an entirely uncomfortable conversation to have with that wonderful woman.
And who did we have to thank for that privilege? The far Left and the licentious society that they are trying to/have created.
Women have the "right to choose" among three options: carrying the pregnancy to term; surrendering the child for adoption; and abortion.
After conception, men have no say in the matter, save for the issue of adoption (and then, the only choice that they have is to take the child for themselves, with the possibility that the mother will later assert her rights, or give up any rights whatsoever). They cannot force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term or to abort.
And if a woman decides to carry the child to term and raise it? The man can be stuck with an 18-22 year bill for child support.
I have two sons. I am raising them --- and continue to intend to raise them --- to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If they ever come home with news that they have impregnated some young lady, I think I know what my response will be (though I hope I will have instilled in them enough sense and judgment to avoid such a happenstance, unless, of course, it is news that it is their wives that they have impregnated).
With that having been said, this suit is completely appropriate, and I hope he wins. I don't support Roe v. Wade. As Liberal constitutional scholar (and abortion supporter) John Hart Ely suggested, it's a monstrosity masquerading as constitutional law. As is fairly typical for the far Left, rather than writing and passing a constitutional amendment to secure a "right" to abortion, they found compliant Federal judges to enact their policy preferences.
The simple fact of the matter is that men are required to "choose" before they engage in the act which causes people. Women are given nine months to "choose." And if they choose to bear the child, they can impose upon the man --- who may have wanted the woman to choose an abortion --- to bear a portion of the costs associated with her choice.
Such is the world that Roe has left us in. None of the far Left commentary that I expect to see (attacking this "man") can be taken seriously, because it will be as intellectually chaotic and self-contradictory as Roe itself is.
Vince and a comment by Saphrosyne at TC are right; he's a loser. I would add that he and those who support his legal efforts apparently possess precious little concern for the daughter that he is probably scarring for life with his actions. So I don't admire Matt Dubay. But he is illustrating the intellectual chaos of the radical pro-abortion crowd. The consequences to his child could, of course, have been avoided had the 1972/73 Supreme Court fully considered the consequences of their actions.
And in that, I confess, I take great, albeit conflicted, pleasure.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
I know I'm a little late to the game on this, but it seems that House Republicans have removed their political gonads from the blind trust into which they had heretofore placed them and demonstrated the testicular fortitude to vote down a truly horrendous nomination by Governor Tim Kaine. Former Virginia AFL-CIO leader Danny LeBlanc has been rejected to be Secretary of the Commonwealth.
Of course, there's been the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth by the far Left side of the political blogosphere (well, OK, Waldo doesn't do "wailing"). Ben Tribbett pretty much rolls it down the middle of the table, as does Virginia Centrist, though Ben seems to take some credit for it.
There's even been some complaints from the Conservative side of the blogosphere. Madisonian at SST thinks it's the same as the Democrats' response to Bush judicial nominees. 'Cept, I don't remember Governor Tim ever campaigning on weakening the Commonwealth's Right to Work law. Norm at OMT doesn't even care.
And our friends on this side of the aisle have some good comments. Will Vehrs at Commonwealth Conservative doesn't think that "this vote will have much salience with anyone but political insiders," and he could well be right. But he also rightly notes that Kaine "ran as Warner II, Mr. Bipartisanship, and Mr. Lockbox, not taxes" and "Now that he’s in office, ... has turned into Russ Potts on taxes and turned bipartisan poster boy William Leighty into a partisan hack." Kilo notes Kaine's "174,000 reasons" why LeBlanc got the nod, which is about $1 for every union member in Virginia. Bearing Drift offers some red meat reasons why this was a good decision. Meanwhile, Vince at Too Conservative think this is an indication of hypocrisy.
I tend to think that this was justified on principle, for precisely the reasons cited by Will Vehrs (though he seems to oppose it on practical political grounds). Nevertheless, there are plenty on both sides of the aisle who will dismiss it as simple 'partisanship." They tend to be the ones who wouldn't recognize a principle if it kicked them in the teeth. As Virginia's commitment to the Right to Work principle just kicked Kaine in the teeth.
In a broader sense, though, this says a lot about Virginia. "Mainstream" is one of the most overused and abused words in political discourse. Most of the time, it's used by people who couldn't hit the "mainstream" unless they drove off a bridge into it (and yes, that is a reference to the senior Senator from Tax-achusetts). The main clue is that doctrinaire ideological partisans like Alexandria's Brian Moran denounce it as "doctrinaire, ideological partisan politics." Delegate Clarence E. "Bud" Phillips (D-Dickenson County) was reported to have say that LeBlanc's rhetoric was indicative of the fact that he was representing the interests of a large number of workers, and suggested that a vote against LeBlanc was a vote that "Just because you're a union man or woman ... you're not qualified to serve in some capacity in state, federal or local government."
No, "Bud," that's wrong. This vote was a vote that, when you're so far outside of the mainstream of Virginia politics that you oppose the Commonwealth's Right to Work law, and so arrogant as to claim to represent the interests of the working man or woman, "you're not qualified to serve in some capacity in state, federal or local government."
It's too bad that Kaine and his partisan cronies can't tell the difference between their far Left agenda --- well-disguised in the campaign past --- and the Virginia consensus that labor unions are not a special class of organizations entitled to special privileges. Of course, why wouldn't Democrats want to allow them to extract from unwilling workers monies that would find their way into Democrat political coffers?
LeBlanc is far Left to the extent that even TC recognizes it. This vote by House Republicans reflects the Virginia consensus that labor unions are not entitled to a special privilege that would allow them to perpetuate one party's political power. Moreover, the notion that the Secretary of the Commonwealth "merely" fills political patronage positions, and that this was therefore not an important position, was a red herring. As Virginia's Republican National Committeeman notes in one of his Laws of the Public Policy Process (No. 26), "Personnel is policy." Those who deny that fact are either too unsophisticated about the public policy process to be commenting upon it, or know the truth, and are lying. This was undoubtedly the correct vote.
What is even more disturbing is the implications in Governor Tim's response to it. Kaine said that the vote was "spitting in the face of regular people, regular working people."
Sorry, Governor Tim, but that doesn't wash. Even assuming for the sake of argument that LeBlanc even represented workers who were members of the Virginia AFL-CIO --- politically, he clearly did not, since surveys demonstrate that a large percentage vote Republican, and an overwhelming majority support Virginia's Right to Work law --- the 200,000 members of the Virginia AFL-CIO are a small percentage (only about 5%) of Virginia's nearly 4 million workers. This isn't "spitting in the face of regular people, regular working people"; it's "spitting in the face" of arrogant and self-important ideologues whose claim to represent "regular working people" is belied by their ability to persuade those "regular working people" that association with them is in their best interests.
Get used to it, Governor Tim and far Left Dems. This is Virginia. Support for Right to Work is the "mainstream." And woe be unto any who challenge it.
And an interesting side note: Lowell at Raising Kaine declares Too Conservative (my "archnemesis," according to Shaun Kenney), his "favorite Republican blog by far." I hope Vince and the boys and girls over there are as disturbed by that as I am. That I believe that they will not be speaks volumes about how "Republican" they are.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
I would love to comment on this. I really would. If you happen to run into me, ask me what I think. But, as I have a Supreme Court practice, there is not a snowball's chance that I'm going to put anything that comes to mind in writing.
Discretion is truly the better part of valor.
UPDATE: Wow! Gotta be careful about this. Somebody just asked me to send her the link to this thread. Here it is: http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2006/03/justice-ginsburg-dozes -off-during-oral.html
Condolences to her family and other friends. Services will be held at 4 p.m., on Monday, 6 March, at First United Presbyterian Church of Dale City.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The governor appears to have suspended his support for growth controls.
If the Post does not run a story Wednesday about the letter below it is because the Governor's people were successful late today in quashing a story that Michael Shear worked on all day and over the weekend.
Shear told me that the Gov. caved to developers to suspend an effort of mine to amend one of my bills with the Governos's growth control bill, which I introduced in exchange for their nonopposition to one of his tax proposals and their nonopposition to a transfer of development rights bill which environmental groups can take or leave, it is that unimportant to them.
I had gone to the Governor and told him I was willing to lose one of my bills becasue an amendment could be germanely added to bring the growth control issue of a record vote in the House.
His aide on this came to me a few days later and said the Governor wants to go ahead full bore which we did for about eight or nine days until yesterday. We had the votes in the Senate Local Government Committee last Friday.
See the letter below.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Mr. Chris Miller
President, Piedmont Environmental Council
45 Horner Street
Warrenton, Virginia 20186
Re: Reversal of Governor’s Growth Control Efforts
Last Friday senior Kaine Administration officials were in my office working on an effort to add the growth control provisions of the Governor’s HB 1610 to my HB 1192 which is now in the Senate Local Government Committee. I was told we had the votes to pass this amendment which would be offered by Sen. Cuccinelli of Fairfax.
HB 1610, which I introduced on behalf of Governor Kaine, allows a locality to deny or modify a request for rezoning when the existing and future transportation network, which will serve the proposed development, is inadequate to handle the anticipated transportation impact of the proposed development if the developer will not make up any transportation deficiency.
After working on this team effort for about week to ten days, the Governor’s aides informed me late yesterday that the Governor now will not take a formal position on the effort to add the provisions of his HB 1610 to my HB 1192. This is most puzzling.
I was told the reason for this was that the amendment might lose in the House of Delegates when the bill would be returned for our consideration of the amendment. However, securing a recorded vote in the House of Delegates on this issue is a major victory in itself, and this amendment process was the one sure way to secure such a vote.
I just wanted to update you on my efforts.
Delegate Bob Marshall
Wow! A Democrat Governor who promptly abandons a promise? Who woulda thunk it?