Why I’m supporting Steve Thomas for Chairman

I’m going to downshift to local politics, and provide some more detail on why I’m supporting Steve Thomas for Chairman of the Spotsylvania Republican Committee.

My statement backing Steve is over on his site.  Check it out.

The State Senate DID increase taxes

From the Washington Examiner (emphasis added):

The Senate budget makes $700 million in cuts. It uses $540 million in new revenues through 2012, including increased fees and taxes on interstate online sales . . .

I suspect the State Senate incorporated Emmett Hanger’s tax-hike bill, which Norm at TQ has also panned.  Sadly, eight Republicans in the State Senate (the usual suspects) still voted for this thing.

Let’s hope the House of Delegates and Governor McDonnell hold firm against this tax increase.

Cross-posted to VV

HB 570 goes down

Sadly, the Assessment Accountability Act (my term for HB570) was defeated in the Senate Finance Committee.  According to Norm (TQ) . . .

(Delegate Sal Iaquinto, the bill’s sponsor) said it looked like the lobbyists for Virginia’s counties and cities has done a thorough job of tilting the Democrats, at least, against it.

And sure enough, when it came time to speak on the bill, VaCo and the VML (RWL: I think that’s the Virginia Municipal League) announced their opposition, as did a handful of tax collectors from Fairfax, Prince William and Augusta counties.

Wait, Norm, did you say the tax collector from Augusta County?

Paging Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Lynn Mitchell . . .

Cross-posted to VV

Thanks to all those who prayed for Dierdre

I just received word from my sister (my youngest sister, not Dierdre’s mother) that Dierdre is doing well and seems to have come through unharmed.

To all of those who offered their prayers and best wishes, thank you.

Stupak won’t vote for Obamacare 2.0

The latest version of Obamacare, because it includes the Senate’s softer language on abortion funding, will be opposed by Bart Stupak (Washington Examiner).

Of course, if the “Stupak Amendment” is attached to the Obamacare 2.0, it will probably get Stupak’s vote, but that would cost it the support of a slew of Senate Democrats – probably even enough to sink the S.S. Reconciliation.

The Stupak Amendment was one of the reasons, Jospeh Cao became the only Republican to vote for Obamacare.  Without it, he’s gone, too.  Throw in Robert Wexler’s resignation and John Murtha’s passing, and Obamacare 2.0 loses 217-216.

So, Pelosi needs to flip a previous “no” vote (also unlikely at this point since Obamacare 2.0 spends more money than the Senate version and has no CBO seal of approval) or wait for Wexler and Murtha’s seats to be filled . . .

. . . assuming Stupak brings no other Democrats with him, or that the Dems can hold both vacant seats.  The former is unlikely, and even the latter is far from certain.

I have always believed that the number that mattered on this issue was never 60 or 51, but 218 – and I don’t think that the Dems can get to that number when the rubber hits the road.

Cross-posted to VV

Dear State Senate Finance Committee

Please pass HB570.

As the folks at Tertium Quids remind us, tomorrow morning (9AM), the Senate Finance Committee will take up The Assessment Accountability Act (my term for HB570).  Given the overwhelming support for this in the House of Delegates, it should have a good chance of passing, but the State Senate has been known to derail things like this before (see Audit, Transporation, Insert-year-here).

Cross-posted to RWL

Thank you, Danny Williams

The irony for Canadian readers (if I have any left) will be thicker than the Arctic ice.  No provincial politician has caused more headaches for the Conservative Party of Canada than Danny Williams.  Yet when the premier of Newfoundland faced controversy for refusing to trust his health to Canada’s socialized medicine (he had heart surgery in Florida), his response could put the nail in the coffin of Obamacare (Globe and Mail):

This is my heart, it’s my health, it’s my choice.

Echoing Mark Steyn and Scaramouche, there’s no better slogan!

Cross-posted to VV

On Bob Marshall’s response (so far)

Delegate Marshall had a two-part response to the reaction over his comments (including mine, although I doubt he was responding directly to me).  Riley has the details, but in essence, Marshall stood behind the “nature’s revenge” comment, then put out a statement that ended with this:

Nevertheless, I regret any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created as to my deep commitment to fighting for these vulnerable children and their families.

Now, to be fair, when Marshall discussed his “nature’s revenge” comments, his truly egregious comment (“There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest”) did not come up.

As I mentioned yesterday, the “nature’s revenge” thing bothered me a lot less than most.  In the absence of God’s intervention (either directly or through the wisdom imparted to us), nature can be very, very cruel.  It was the “special punishment” line that stunned and disappointed me so much.  Based on the chronology of these two reactions from Marshall, I think (and hope) that it is the “special punishment” line that he regrets.

As a former candidate and a current blogger, I know the danger of a disconnect between mind, ears, and tongue.  Thankfully, when I had them as a candidate, I was in a position to fix the problem in seconds and with minimal damage.  As a blogger, sometimes it took longer to correct the mistakes, but usually I could do it quickly with little damage.

Bob Marshall wasn’t so lucky this time, but we all have moments when we look back and think to ourselves, “I said what?!?!?“

Still, it would have just been easier to say, “Whoops!  I’m sorry I said that.  It’s not what I meant, and I’ll be more careful with my words next time.”  It would also help if he confirmed which words he “regrets” saying.

Cross-posted to VV

An open letter to Delegate Bob Marshall

Dear Bob,

It hurts to write this, but write it I must.

I was one of your first supporters in your U.S. Senate bid two years ago.  I defended you from the moronic sludge thrown at you by Democrats (and sadly, a few Republicans) about your record.  I took to this blog to give badly needed context to the attacks aimed at you over your Love Canal comments (note to readers, if you’re asking why I capitalized Love Canal, read this).

This is why I am so confused and disappointed at the comments attributed to you in the Staunton News-Leader.

To wit, there are two comments where you are quoted that, for obvious reasons, have gotten the most attention.  Here’s the first:

The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.

Of course, you can see why that would upset a number of people.  Oddly enough, this wasn’t the quote that bothered me the most.  Nature can be very, very cruel, in ways we don’t anticipate.  Hobbes didn’t call the state of nature “nasty, brutish, and short” for nothing.

It was the second quote attributed to you that bothered me (emphasis added):

In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.

Come again?  I find it very hard to believe Christians “suggest” the Lord inflicts punishment upon children for the sins of their parents.  As I understand it (and I admit I am no theologian), the only sin we inherited was Original Sin.  Full Stop.

There are so many ways this statement troubles; the general inference that disabled children are somehow punishments handed down by the Lord is the one that has generated the most heat (here‘s one of the gentler exmaples, and like JR, I disagree with that inference strongly), but there are others that – I hope – you will answer with something akin to you-know-I-really-didn’t-think-that-through.

• Are we to assume that the Lord values first-born children more than subsequent ones?  Is he less upset if a second-, third-, or later conceived child is murdered in the womb than the first-born?
• Do the opinions of the parents count for nothing?  Can a mother or father repent?  Or is this the one sin whose punishment not only affects innocents, but is also irreversible?
• Assuming the initial statement you made is true (and usually, you research these things well enough to ensure that), is this really something we should tout in such a manner?  Would it not be better to describe it as an unfortunate effect that should be combatted to the best of our ability by the medical community?  As I recall, several in the pro-life community have noted some correlation between abortion and breast cancer (note to readers: correlation does not imply causality, so take it easy), but I know of no respectable person who claimed the suffering of breast cancer as a proper pennance or atonement.

Bear in mind, this comes from one of your longest admirers in the blogosphere.  Please, tell me that this admiration and energy was not in vain.

Cross-posted to VV

Global warming will sink the islands! Um, never mind.

A study on sea level that ostensibly ”strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results” has been pulled for errors (Guardian, UK).

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

Oops.

Cross-posted to VV