More evidence John McCain is winning the Democratic primary

Here’s Rasmussen‘s take on the events of the past week:

This week, Michigan moved from Likely Democratic to Toss-up status following the release of new polling data and changes in Rasmussen Markets data. Currently, the markets give Democrats victory a 51.0% chance of winning in Michigan). Also this week, Pennsylvania shifted from Likely Democratic to Leans Democratic and Ohio moved from Leans Democratic to Toss-up. A Rasmussen Reports video looks at how the long Primary battle is beginning to hurt Democrats on the Electoral College Map.

That’s three states, totaling 58 electoral votes, that moved away from the Democrats as their primary battle was dominating the political campaign.

For the record, Rasmussen gives McCain a statistically insignificant lead in all three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan) against either Clinton or Obama.  Rasmussen has him in the same position nationwide.

Why, you ask?  Well, it’s not that the Democrats still have a contest.  If, for example, they were discussing ideas, visions, etc., they’d probably generate more interest in both candidates.  However, since they have dissolved into high-octane identity politics (well, they did that a while ago, now it’s just in the open for everyone to see), I suspect that they’re turning off voters in droves.

Meanwhile, McCain is headed abroad (Washington Post), so all voters will see of him is press conferences with leading foreign officials, talking about the issues vital to American security, while the Democrats hurl charges of “racism” and “sexism” at each other.

Does Bill Howell WANT to be Minority Leader (Part 2)?

Remember the battle in the Senate to take Planned Parenthood funding out of the budget (Shaun Kenney), thus ensuring neither chamber supported abortion funding?  Well, the Senate Democrats demanded the House Republicans ignore the will of both chambers and put the funding back in.

And the House  . . . caved (Family Foundation):

With the General Assembly set to approve a budget negotiated by House and Senate conferees, officials from two of the Commonwealth’s leading statewide pro-life organizations expressed profound regret over the failure of negotiators to provide conscience protections to the vast number of Virginia taxpayers who strongly oppose paying for life-ending practices.

“Words cannot express the disappointment of pro-family Virginians at the decision of the Virginia General Assembly to continue forcing taxpayers of Virginia to fund the destruction of human life and the most extreme pro-abortion organization in Virginia. The General Assembly had multiple options, including banning funding of Planned Parenthood, embryonic stem cell research or state funded abortions. It is simply astonishing that they were unable to get any of the three amendments added to the budget.

“It is outrageously unacceptable to force Virginia taxpayers to fund abortions, life-destructive research, and the abortion industry’s largest provider. Large numbers of constituents have expressed their concerns of conscience to budget negotiators for several years now, but these concerns never seem to come close to making the top of the priority list.”

Last month, the House of Delegates approved budget provisions prohibiting state funding of abortions and research that requires either a human embryo to be destroyed or a baby to be aborted. Although the Senate’s version of the budget did not include these items, the full Senate voted on February 27 to remove more than $200,000 in state funds that had been designated for Planned Parenthood of Virginia, the state affiliate of the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Although all three of these provisions were considered by the budget conferees, none of them were included in their final report.

According to data from the Virginia Department of Health and the Department of Medical Assistance Services, state taxpayers have subsidized 322 abortions – almost one every two days – over the last two fiscal years.

House Speaker Bill Howell’s version of “leadership” has already cost the Republicans 2/3 of the House majority they had in 2002, largely by ignoring economic conservatives time and time again.  This, however, is the first time I can remember that he (through his conferees) stiff-armed the social conservatives like this.

I get the feeling there are a lot of Delegates who are regretting not standing with Bob Marshall when he tried to send a wake-up call to the House leadership.

Welcome back, STD!

After a strange hiatus, Spank That Donkey is back in the blogospheric battle for the U.S. Senate.  Tonight, he takes Delegate Marshall to task on ANWR drilling, a subject about which, according to STD, “Delegate Marshall became noticeably uncomfortable.”

As it happens, I recall Delegate Marshall speaking on energy when he came to the Spotsylvania Republican Committee meeting in January.  He was quite comfortable discussing his views there: he prefers nuclear power.

Now, I have no idea what Gilmore, or STD for that matter, think of nuclear power.  Also, I would agree with STD on ANWR.  However, those who support nuclear power get more leeway with me because they certainly don’t swallow the “negawatts”-ultraconservation nonsense.

Marshall is one of those people.  He knows we need energy, and he’s willing to ensure we have it through nuclear power (as does John McCain, BTW, but that’s for another post).

Another report, this one showing Saddam and al Qaeda worked together, gets butchered by MSM

The Pentagon released a report that detailed the following (Weekly Standard Blog):

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda — as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term vision . . . Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.

The report also says (same link):

While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

So how what does MSM do with this report?  Take a wild guess.

An item on the New York Times blog snarks, “Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link.” The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, “Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda.”

I guess “de facto” links don’t count.

The more I think about this, the more upset I get - because this isn’t the first time MSM has pulled stunts like this.  When the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran came out, MSM took certain phrases so badly out of context that even leading American conservatives thought the NIE report was a whitewash of Tehran and started ripping it incessantly (for anyone willing to see what that NIE actually said, take a look here, here, here, and here).

Now, MSM may turn a reasonable report which details Saddam Hussein’s cooperation with al Qaeda into a Bush-debunking ad for the Democratic Party.  It’s beyond despicable.

Obama gives “bringing home the bacon” new meaning

Back when he was just a Senator (hint: he liked his middle name then), the Audacity of Hype pulled a neat trick: earmarking a cool million for his wife’s employer.

Here are the details (from Jim Geraghty):

Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of earmarks he requested, $1 Million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.

You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?

Michelle Obama. She’s vice president of community affairs.

As Byron noted, “In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.”

Looks like that raise was worth it.

I’ll say it was!

Why Jim Gilmore owes his accomplishments to Bob Marshall

Imagine if Virginia’s history at the turn of the millennium went like this:

Having been elected in 1997 on a pledge to eliminate the car tax, Gilmore’s plan fell under a shadow no larger than a man’s hand – in this case, the hand of House of Delegates Speaker Thomas Moss.  Moss used his power to stack House Committees with fellow Democrats, who refused to let the car tax reach the floor without a tax increase of some kind to pay for it.  Faced with an recalcitrant House and a Senate weakly controlled by moderate Republicans, Gilmore tried again in 1999, only to find voters blamed him for the resulting inaction, and the GOP actually lost seats in the mid-term elections.

The following year, Gilmore agreed to the Democrats’ plan, enraging the base of his own party and writing his own political ruin.  Today, the tax increases Gilmore had to accept have even outlasted the car-tax reduction, which were repealed by his successor – Democrat Mark Warner.

Of course, none of the above happened, but it could have.  The Democrats could have threatened not only the car-tax cut, but all of the accomplishments Gilmore touts today.  That they did not – that they could not - is the result of one man – Bob Marshall – and the actions he took on January 14, 1998.

That day, the House of Delegates began it’s new session – minus three members who had been elected the night before in special elections.  All three were Republicans; and had they been in the chamber, the Republicans (plus Lacey Putney) would have had 50 seats – parity with the Democrats.  The Democrats were not happy about this (one of the temporarily vacant seats had been held by a Democrat who resigned to take a post in the incoming Gilmore Administration), so in order to hold onto power, they threw caution to the wind and held the election for Speaker before the special election winners could be certified and seated.  The result was as expected; Moss won with 50 votes.  Most (including all the Democrats) expected things to die down after a while, especially since outgoing Governor Allen was supposed to give his final State of the State Address that night.

However, Delegate Marshall refused to let it go.  He repeatedly demanded the floor, shouting “Objection” over and over again.  Much to the surprise of everyone else, the entire Republican caucus joined in, pounding their desks and shouting “Objection” at the top of their lungs.

What had been the Democrats’ attempt at political trickery became an overnight national sensation.  Governor Allen even interrupted his own valedictory speech with a scolding rebuke to the House Democrats for what they had done.  More importantly, having been thus energized, the GOP caucus basically shut down the House of Delegates (51 members are required for a quorum), refusing to let any major items be discussed until the Dems agreed to a power-sharing arrangement reflecting the even split in the House.  With all of Virginia watching them, not a single Republican budged (not even the veteran liberal gadfly Penny Rhodes).

The Democrats had no choice but to come to terms, which they did.  All committees had balanced partisan representation (half and half) and a co-chairman from each party (or, if the co-chairs couldn’t get along, one party had the chair for one year, the other for the next).  The Democratic domination of the House of Delegates came to an ignominious end (although Moss could still block some bills by fiat).  Democratic Floor Leader Dick Cranwell (remember him?) likened it to a funeral.

The rest, as they say, was history.  Gilmore, faced with chastened Democrats and energized Republicans (who also had a one-seat majority in the Senate), was able to get the car-tax reduction and several more accomplishments passed.  He and his fellow Republicans thus had a positive record on which to run in 1999, and thus the Republicans finally won majorities in both chambers.

Lest anyone forget, Gilmore and the GOP needed that record.  Outside of Virginia, 1999 was not a Republican year.  In fact, the elections of ’99 were so bad that the good news in the Old Dominion was noticed from as far away as the editorial offices of the New York Post.

What are the lessons from this trip down memory lane?  I can think of two.  First of all, every legislative accomplishment Gilmore achieved in the first two years of his term – and arguably in the final two as well – he owes to Bob Marshall.  Voters should remember that the next time Gilmore reads off his laundry list of accomplishments as Governor.

Secondly - and more importantly in my view – it shows why we need someone with legislative experience in the U.S. Senate.  The federal upper house is a labyrinth of rules, procedures, and other parliamentary maneuvers that can overwhelm the novice (neither Gilmore nor Mark Warner have served one day in a legislative body) while being valuable weapons for the skilled politician.  Unlike Gilmore and Warner, Bob Marshall has been a legislator for over sixteen years.

Legislative experience can bring many things.  It can help a member stop bad legislation, steer through good legislation, and yes, on occasion, it can change history and dramatically improve the political climate for an incoming chief executive – much like what Bob Marshall did for Jim Gilmore on that January day ten years ago.

Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 Bob Marshall

Does anybody else out there give their crazy uncle $22,500?

Barack Obama has referred to his former pastor, Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, as “an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with” (ABC News via Jim Geragthy).  Without using so many words, the rest of us would call him the “crazy uncle” (or aunt).  To that extent, he’s right, everybody has at least one in their family (and no, my siblings don’t have children, so it’s not me – um, yet).

Meanwhile, we can certainly understand why Obama would want to distance himself from a fellow who said this (Geragthy):

In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just “disappeared” as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.

Crazy uncle indeed!  This is clearly not the image the Audacity of Hype wants to project.

One odd thing, though (New Yorker via The Corner, emphasis added):

In 2006, the Obamas gave $22,500 to the church.

So, how many of you, dear readers, handed more than $22K over to your crazy uncle?

If Gilmore’s people are going to go after Marshall, they might want to get their facts right

So I’m checking my email before I begin my class, and I see the Jim Gilmore is not happy with some of the things Bob Marshall has said about him (and some of his prominent supporters).  So I figure it will make a nice post, but I have a class to teach.

So of course, by the time I come home, put the little guy to bed, run some errands, and finally get to my computer, it’s all over cyberspace.  The Washington Post has Marshall’s initial comments, Proud Republican at Virginia Virtucon reprints Gilmore’s press-release response (which garners its own response from fellow VV commentator Major Kong), and various sites chime in (BVBL wins top prize for post title – “Gilmore Runs to Momma”).

Weirdly enough, Spank That Donkey is quiet (as of 11:20 PM).  That can’t be good; when you most prolific, passionate, and humorous supporter on the blogosphere is sitting one out, you’re in deep trouble.  Then again, thanks to my schedule, the Gilmore people could have said the same thing!

Anyhow, amidst all the whirl and the rush, a couple of things have been lost – namely some facts that Gilmore’s people just got wrong.

Let’s start with the first set of errors: “To say that Jim Gilmore or the many prominent Republican leaders who support him have a “death wish” or are not pro-life is, at best, ill informed . . . “

For starters, Marshall’s exact words were as follows: “These guys have a political death wish for the party.”  Note the full term: political death wish.  Marshall wasn’t equating Gilmore backers to suicide bombers, rather he was questioning their political judgement.  Were his words strong?  Sure they were, but does Dick Leggitt (Gilmore’s campaign manager and the actual person quoted here) really think Mark Warner’s people will be nice?  As our presidential nominee is famous for saying, “Politics ain’t beanbag.”

As for “not pro-life,” Marshall only tagged that label on one person – Jim Gilmore.  Marshall had good reason for doing so; Jim Gilmore is not pro-life.

Lest we forget, Gilmore has an eight-week “choice” window, one large enough to kill over 600,000 to 700,000 children (or 50-60% of the estimated 1.2 million abortions performed in America every year; Marshall uses the higher number).

In fact, Marshall make the point clear in the part of his statement Leggitt doesn’t mention: “You’ve got basically the entire Republican establishment endorsing a candidate, Jim Gilmore, who wants to keep 60 percent of all abortions now being done legal (emphasis added)”.  Leggitt can’t get around that, so he’s left asking Marshall to “either come in out of the sun or put on a hat” – a snarky line that is far worse than aything Marshall used towards anyone in the Gilmore camp.

Oh, and there’s one more thing Leggitt got wrong - this nonsense: “Del. Marshall should . . . take a moment to remember the  alternative is electing Mark Warner to the U.S. Senate.”  No, Dick, the alternative is electing Bob Marshall to the U.S. Senate.

One more thing: Gilmore’s little missive mentioned abortion, national security, his campaign history, and a quick mention of other things - except the transportation debate in Richmond.  This fits a depressing pattern.

From the head of the Spotsylvania Citizens Budget Watchdog Committee

The following is the statement of Greg Cebula, Chairman of the Citizens Budget Watchdog Committee, to the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors, delivered yesterday – March 11, 2008.

Good evening Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, and Citizens of Spotsylvania County. My name is Greg Cebula and I live in Berkeley District.

I come before you as chairman of a newly formed Citizens Committee. We are formed of the same members as your previously appointed CBAC membership.
We unanimously decided to continue to survey the County government’s budget process. In recognition of our independent status we are now the “Citizens Budget Watchdog Committee” and have filled the open position left when you dissolved us.

Our goal is to provide useful budget recommendations to the BOS for your consideration in resolving both the current short-term budget crisis and the longer-term budget process.

Our essential thrust tonight, is to urge you to be more aware of the need to communicate with taxpaying citizens regarding the County’s current fiscal plans and longer-term fiscal condition.

Since the April 1st public hearing is to solicit citizen comments about the reasonableness of proposed budgetary expenditures, as well as the advertised tax rate, we have a few suggestions to improve the process for citizen commentary. At past annual Budget Hearings a booklet was provided to citizens at the hearing.  We recommend this information be available prior to the hearing and that in this year’s booklet you include:

1. A six-year history of the real estate tax rates levied.
2. The median assessed valuation of single-family residential property.
3. The average tax burden for each year. 

This information will allow citizens to determine the reasonableness of trends in tax burdens and it should also be available online at least one week prior to the hearing. 

Furthermore, there is a need to clearly disclose the amount of projected undesignated revenues. Since this is the revenue figure used by the County Administrator for his projection of revenues available for the “local transfer” to the School Division, a note should be prominently displayed in the booklet that states:

It is the current budgetary practice of the BOS to allow 67% percent of the undesignated revenue to be automatically transferred to the School Division. 

As you will recall we strongly opposed, and continue to reject this approach to budgeting.

Finally, the budget booklet should show the annual debt service obligations over the next five years for bonds already issued and those projected to be issued in 2008-09.   Our citizens need to know how much county revenue is sucked away by debt service, or by how many cents the tax rate must be increased to cover the debt service.

During the last three years, overall population increased by 7.1% and school enrollment increased 10%. Meanwhile spending for county services increased 41% and school spending increased at a 35% rate. This is hardly responsible spending and could have been avoided had our recommendations been in place. And now our population and student growth rates are declining.

  

Continued meetings and dialog within our committee and citizens at large has produced the following comments and recommendations:

1. The County must be governed to live within our means; we can only afford so much government.
2. The Board must insist on reducing all non-essential spending across the county to provide taxpayer relief and minimize the burden on employees.
3. If you continue to insist on spending 2/3 of undesignated revenue on education, then you must highly prioritize the remainder to be spent on public safety and social services for children.

As a means to resolve this budgetary crisis, we make the following seven recommendations:

1. Demonstrate leadership and resolve by initiating severe budget reductions across the board.
2. Freeze current level of funding for essential core government services.
3. Apply comprehensive spending reductions in all other departments and outside agencies.
4. If at all possible avoid layoffs by reducing hours of some full time positions to 32 hours while still maintaining corresponding benefits. Consider pay cuts for executive positions.
5. Return the Strategic Reserve back to the 10% minimum required.
6. Reallocate Transportation Reserves to the General Fund.
7. Reexamine and prioritize need to fund Regional agencies.

In closing we request you act upon our comments and invoke the fiscally responsible decisions you were elected to make.

Thank You

As the transportation debate rages on in Richmond, where is Jim Gilmore?

It’s been nearly two weeks since the State Supreme Court wiped out the unconstitutional taxes imposed by HB 3202.  The legislature has been engulfed by a cacophony of voices on how to “fix transportation.”  Sadly, my ideas have yet to inspire a good pair of legislative lungs.

For the most part, far too many Republicans are willing to force local government to raise their taxes (what Jim Bowden dubbed “the son of Frankenstein” in a phone call with me last week), while the Democrats are pushing a combination of onerous sate taxes aand onerous local taxes.  Bob Marshall, of course, is determined to stop any tax increase from replacing the ones he just sued to erase.

However, there is one voice whose silence on this matter has been deafening – Jim Gilmore.

Throughout the entire debate on HB3202, Gilmore said not a word.  I can actually understand why – he was running for president at the time.  Now, however, as a Virginia GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate, he has no excuse.

To the extent that the Establishment GOP backs anyone in this race, it backs Gilmore.  If he were to tell Bill Howell et al to cut this nonsense out, there is a good chance we can get through this summer without any tax increases.  At the very least, Gilmore could reveal that he still has his ear closer to the ground than the power brokers in Richmond.  Yet he says nothing.  Why?

I don’t want to hear about the car tax reduction.  I credit him for that, but it was ten years ago.  We are in the midst of a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party right now, and Gilmore is repeating Jerry Kilgore’s mistake of sitting on the sidelines and hoping it all goes away.

This is a terrible message to send to both the party activists and the millions of Virginians who have emphatically demanded that taxes not be raised.  After all, if Jim Gilmore remains silent for fear of alienating Bill Howell, Bob McDonnell, and other Richmond Republicans, how will he fare against the “Old Bulls” in the Senate when it comes time to stand on principle?  How can we be certain he will be a conservative Virginian first and a Republican politician second in 2009 when he won’t even do it in 2008?

The way I see it, Gilmore has three choices.  He can throw in with his new-found Establishment buddies and make it clear he is no longer the anti-tax man he was; he can remain silent and reveal that he has lost the courage of his convictions; or he can take a chance, stand on principle, and endear himself to millions of Virginians inside and outside the Republican Party. 

Until and unless Gilmore takes that final option, the reality is this: only one Senate candidate is standing up for Virginians against higher taxes today – and that man is Bob Marshall.

Cross-posted to Bloggers 4 Bob Marshall