About a year ago, Vincent (Too Conservative) put out a call for additional contributors to Too Conservative. Having been a long time reader and commenter, I volunteered my services. I’ve had a lot of fun blogging over here at Too Conservative, and it’s given me both a platform for my opinion and the opportunity to meet dozens of great people, many of whom have become close friends.

.

But like any good guest invited in, it’s always important to know when to take your leave. That time for me is now. This will be my last post on Too Conservative as a contributor. It’s time for me to move on.
.

One of my law professors noted recently that all lawyers tend to be control freaks. This includes future lawyers like myself. Over the last few months, I’ve gotten frustrated at times with some things on the site – largely technical (still can’t get spaces between paragraphs without work arounds!) but a few that were more fundamental. I’ve always been vocal about my opinions and willing to defend them, but I’ve also been constrained in the knowledge that this was not my blog. Instead of remaining frustrated, I’ve decided to strike out on my own. As many of you know, I’ve begun my own blog, Common Sense. I hope that my readers here will take a few moments and add the new site to your roster of places to visit.
.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank a few people. First, of course, Vincent Harris, for the opportunity to blog here. I’d like to thank my co-contributors VA Blogger, Loudoun Insider and Cato the Elder – they’ve helped make the site what it is and bring in the stories that build a readership. I also have to thank that readership – from those who I’ve often agreed with, like NoVAScout, Lovettsville Lady, Bulletproof Monk, Ric James, Tito and Debbie Munoz and others to those who I’ve had plenty of arguments with, like James Young, Dan, Loudoun Lady, Sally, and many, many others. Getting into arguments and debates with all of you has been a great way to talk and think about politics and has gotten me through many a long day of work and longer night of studying. I’d also like to thank a few fellow bloggers – namely Ben Tribbett of Not Larry Sabato for his advice and sense of humor, J.R. Hoeft of Bearing Drift for his support, Chris Beer of Mason Conservative for giving me a lot of topics of convesation with friends and keeping me up to date on UFC, and Lowell Feld for showing me how not to run a blog.
.
I also want to thank the elected officials and party leaders I’ve gotten to know through the site, including Delegates Tim Hugo, Mark Keam, Jim LeMunyon, Barbara Comstock, Scott Surovell and Bob Brink, Supervisors John Cook and Pat Herrity, and current and former party leaders Glen Caroline and Anthony Bedell. It has been great working and discussing issues with you and I look forward to continuing to do so in the future at Common Sense.
.
Thanks again everyone and I look forward to seeing you all on the new site!

.

Tweet This Post 

After a year of casting vote after vote for Obama Administration proposals, resulting in the largest increase in government spending in history, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-11th) is trying to paint himself as a fiscal conservative.  Right.

.

On June 3, Congressman Connolly issued a press release highlighting his “break with [the Democratic] party” where he voted against the recent unemployment and COBRA extension bill, H.R. 4213, in the House of Representatives.  In his cynically political press release, Congressman Connolly argues that “as Northern Virginians are tightening their belts in this tough economy, Washington must also buckle down and take serious steps to stop wasteful spending and rein in the deficit…” as a justification for his voting against the $115 billion measure.

.

What took him so long to figure that out?

.

Congressman Connolly’s epiphany on reckless Washington spending seems to have come not a moment too soon.  With Republicans raring to taking him on this fall and an anti-incumbent mood sweeping the country, he’s going to need to clean up his record on spending.  And just what is that record?

.

• He voted in favor of the Stimulus Bill, H.R. 1, which cost taxpayers $787 billion and was supposed to keep the unemployment rate from going above 8%.  The unemployment rate has hovered around the mid-to-high 9% range for over a year;

.

• He voted in favor of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, H.R. 1105, which included $410 billion in spending, the President’s 2009 supplemental spending bill for the Cash for Clunkers program, H.R. 3435, which cost an additional $2 billion, and the $3.56 trillion budget plan in 2009, H. Con. Res. 85, which 20 of his Democratic colleagues in the House voted against;

.

• He voted in favor of the “minibus” spending bill last December, H.R. 3288, which 28 of his Democratic colleagues in the House voted against and which cost taxpayers $1.1 trillion;

.

• He voted in favor of the President’s health care plan, H.R. 3590, which will add over $1 trillion in new federal spending over the next 10 years.  The CBO recently changed its score of the health care law, adding an additional $115 billion in spending that was left out of the original estimates.

.

Yet after all of that, he has the gall to call himself a “deficit hawk” on his campaign website.  Is that a joke?

.

Recent Gallup polling shows the American people are as worried about the Federal Government’s debt as they are about terrorism, with 79% rating it “very serious” or “extremely serious” (USA Today/Gallup Polling, May 24-25, 2010).  With the public demanding fiscally accountability in Washington, it makes perfect sense for Congressman Connolly to try to pretend he cares about runaway government spending.  But his record demonstrates that he, like his mentor Nancy Pelosi, never saw a spending bill he didn’t like – or wouldn’t vote for, until now.

.

Connolly can see the handwriting on the wall, but if he thinks he’s going to win another election by pretending his a fiscal conservative, he’s got another thing coming.  Unlike his votes as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, people are actually paying attention to him now that he’s in the Congress.  The voters of the 11th District won’t be buying Congressman Connolly’s last minute conversion when it comes to fiscal discipline.

.

Nice try, Gerry.  But we all know you better than that.

Tweet This Post 

.

I hope everyone who can votes tomorrow, regardless of which candidate they are supporting.  The polls will be open from 6 AM to 7 PM tomorrow, June 8th.  All registered voters are welcome to vote in the primary.  I’ll be out at Monument Precinct most of the day, so if you’re in the neighborhood of the Fairfax County Government Center, feel free to stop by and say hello.

.

Tomorrow is the first step in firing Gerry Connolly, retiring Nancy Pelosi, and taking our country back.  Be a part of it. Vote!

Tweet This Post 

.

The meeting was productive, with the committee adopting its first budget for as long as I can recall being a member (at least 2 years) and noting that we are in the black with the potential to raise a significant amount of money and hold on to it for use in the upcoming elections in November and next year’s elections.  Chairman Bedell also went through an abbreviated review of his goal for the organization and announced the revamped committee system, urging members to get in touch with him, Political Director Kerry O’Brien or the committee chairs if they want to get involved.

.

We heard speeches from a surrogate for Patrick Murray who couldn’t attend the meeting, Matthew Berry, Keith Fimian and Pat Herrity.  Matt Berry was the first actual candidate who spoke and I’m happy it was him – his speech set exactly the right tone for the speeches that night.  He focused hard on retiring Jim Moran and thanked Patrick for his hard work and recognized that either he or Patrick would be a better replacement than Jim, which is clearly true.  His speech, in my opinion, resulted in a significantly less bloody round of speeches in the 11th District.  Keith Fimian, reading from a prepared script, provided a good speech that highlighted his differences with Connolly and he did not spend a significant amount of time bashing Pat Herrity.  Likewise, Pat’s speech focused on the Democrats in Washington, and was notable for discussing a issues that have been strangely absent in the 11th District Primary, such as illegal immigration.

.

Overall, it was a good meeting, marred only briefly by the usual attempts at parliamentary games. We’re on the home stretch now! Less than one week until the primaries are over and we can all start focusing our attention on the real task at hand – defeating Gerry Connolly, retiring Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and taking back the Congress from the Democrats.

.

Tweet This Post 

.

Please join us tonight at Woodson High School (Cafeteria A), located at 9525 Main Street in Fairfax.  The business meeting starts at 8 PM, with a social hour provided by the Lee District Committee beginning at 7 PM.  I hope you all will come out and join us, especially since I’ll be flying solo tonight and I’ll need the company!  After the last meeting, I don’t want to subject my wife to potentially multiple hours of wrangling over Robert’s Rules.  See you all there!

.

Tweet This Post 

.

I did hear from a lot of folks that Republicans were well represented at the event – with booths from the Herrity campaign and FCRC.  Not sure where Keith Fimian was as he didn’t have a booth, but the rest of the 11th District primary was there – Herrity, Connolly, and the two independents Chris Decarlo and John Lemon (who was handing out lemons).  The Democrats were also well represented by my delegate, Mark Keam, who was there as well and has some good photos up on Facebook.

.

I’m sorry I missed catching up with everyone. Next year I’ll be there and I’ll drag the wife and the little tyke with me!

.

Tweet This Post 

As most of us take a day of to enjoy some time with friends and family, take a moment to remember the men and women who give Memorial Day its meaning. Happy Memorial Day everyone!

Tweet This Post 

.

And, despite the spin attempts by the White House and the slow-to-react mainstream media, people have been questioning the claim that the Obama Administration is far more competent than the Bush Administration was for a while now.  The list of missteps the President and his team have made is getting longer every day (if you don’t believe me, listen to Sean Hannity’s radio show – he lists them every day at least once during the broadcast). From his cabinet full of tax cheats (at least, the ones who actually got approved by the Senate), his tin ear on illegal immigration, his obsession with passing an unpopular and unconstitutional health care reform law, to his failure to focus on the economy after passing the stimulus (which also never lived up to his or his Administration’s claims) the bloom is definitely off the rose when it comes to questions of competency.

.

That brings us to today’s crises.  First, you have his personal response to the Gulf Oil Spill, which has been anemic to the point of being farcical.  Second, you have the White House stonewalling on the attempted bribery of Joe Sestak to get out of the Pennsylvania Senate race in return for high level presidential appointment, either as Secretary of the Navy or something similar.  The President and his administration have sunk to Nixonian levels to ignore that story and refuse to comment on it.  The Sestak issue deserves a post of its own, which I will get to soon.

.

.

Yesterday, in one of the President’s very few major press conference since his flub that resulted in the Beer Summit, the President looked like he was doing his best to channel George W. Bush on his worst day.  What I found most revealing is that the President doesn’t seem to be an action oriented guy. He’s a thinker, not a doer. In response to a question about the charges that this was his Katrina, the President responded: “I’ll leave it to you guys to make those comparisons, and make judgments on it, because what I’m spending my time thinking about is how do we solve the problem.”  Really?  You’re spending your time thinking about how to solve the problem?  The last time I checked, the President was a lawyer, not a engineer.  He should be riding herd on the engineers who are actually solving the problem, not thinking about how to solve it.  We didn’t elect the President to solve problems like this. That’s why he has Departments of the Interior and Energy, a Coast Guard and any number of experts who can help if he thinks BP is incompetent.

.

Yes, that’s nitpicky, but it’s evidence of a frustrating mindset that has captured this Administration.  In any organization, there has to be a balance between thinking and doing.  Clearly, many people believed there was too little thinking and too much doing during the Bush Administration.  But now that the pendulum has swung in the other direction, we’re seeing an Administration that is paralyzed by thinking and either unwilling or unable to engage in much doing.  Don’t get me wrong – I appreciate the need for planning, but at some point planning and thinking crosses the line from being the sign of competence and cold rationality and enters the realm of avoidance.  It seems to be that the President wants to avoid this issue at all costs now, and has been doing his best to distance himself personally from it from day one.  His visit today to the Gulf will be his second in 40 days.  He’s been there twice.  Bush had visited the Gulf eight times between August 29th when Katrina made landfall and October 10th, almost the same time period.

.

He also apparently doesn’t even know about high level personnel changes in his administration. Obama’s appointee to lead the Minerals and Management Service, Elizabeth Birnbaum, resigned yesterday.  When the President was asked about the resignation – whether it was voluntary or involuntary – he had no idea. “I found out about her resignation today. [Secretary of the Interior] Ken Salazar has been in testimony throughout the day, so I don’t know the circumstances in which this occurred,” he said.  Doesn’t know? The President’s appointee to head MMS is quitting and Salazar didn’t even call him ahead of time? Really? Something doesn’t smell right.

.

The President’s performance in the press conference smelled of desperation. His administration is desperate to make clear that this isn’t like Katrina, but in doing so, they’re spending more time spinning and appearing to accomplish things, rather than actually accomplishing them.  According to Congressman Kevin McCarthy, Obama hasn’t even returned phone calls of the Congressman who represents the district most affected. Requests have taken weeks to review – such as Governor Jindal’s request for barriers, which the President acknowledged. And 17 offers of assistance from foreign governments have yet to be responded to.  I understand the need to review, but we’re dealing with an on-going crisis – is it wrong to expect that things move a little faster? I don’t think so.

.

As LI points out, this issue gets worse as time goes on and I don’t blame just BP.  Despite the volume of air coming out of the White House, we’ve seen very little in the way of constructive action.  Charlie Melancon, the Democratic Congressman running against David Vitter for the Senate seat, was so broken up over the issue he couldn’t make it through a Congressional hearing without having to leave to compose himself.  If that alone doesn’t express to members of an Administration on the same side of aisle as he how big a deal this disaster is to the Gulf, I don’t know what will. The thousands and thousands of fisherman and residents down there feel the same way.

.

When Obama was elected, I recall telling my wife “well, I don’t like him ideologically, but at least he seems competent.”  Just yesterday, discussing the same issue, my wife and I actually said we miss the days of Bill Clinton in the White House – if we have to have a Democrat at least Clinton was empathetic and was a good manager (his first year in office notwithstanding).  It’s a pretty sad state when two diehard Republicans are looking back fondly on the Clinton presidency.  As Peggy Noonan wrote, this is an explosive issue for this Administration and it is blowing away the patina of competence Obama claimed to have.  Hopefully BP’s top kill will get this problem resolved and the President takes a good hard look at his Administration and how he manages crises – this won’t be the last one.

Tweet This Post 

.

1. Tito “the Builder” Munoz’s new radio show – Friday night, my wife and I attended a fundraiser for Tito Munoz’s new hour long conservative radio show specifically targeted at an Hispanic audience.  I’ve known Tito for a while now and was happy to come out to support his show.  The turnout was great, with folks coming from around Fairfax and across the state, including my friend Tom White from VARight.com who lives in Hanover county.  Del. Tim Hugo, Springfield Supervisor and 11th District Candidate Pat Herrity and 11th District Candidate Keith Fimian also attended the event.  Delegate Hugo, who is a big fan of Too Conservative, managed to extract a promise from me to stop blogging for a few weeks once my son is born, so if you miss me around the end of next month, you’ll know who to blame!

.

I’m happy that Tito is going to be doing this show because he understands – as I have been advocating for a while now – the critical need to expand the Republican party and educate those who only hear the Democratic talking points about Republicans and diversity.  Tito’s outreach to the Hispanic community is going to play a critical role in educating the next generation of Republican activists in Northern Virginia, a large portion of whom will not be the old white male stereotype Democrats love to sell to voters.  Keep up the  good work, Tito!

.

UPDATE:  I forgot to mention – if anyone is interested in donating to help Tito, please feel free to send checks to the Conservative Hispanic Coalition, PO Box 3845, Reston, VA 20195.

.

2. Charles Djou (R) wins the HI-1 Special Election – The spin coming out of the Democratic party over the last week has focused on what Democrats claim is a Republican inability to win special elections, despite the bad environment for Democrats and incumbents right now.  They point to a number of races, particularly the NY-23 debacle, and their recent victory in PA-12 as proof that November isn’t going to be that bad.  Keep telling yourselves that, my Democratic friends.  Yesterday, Charles Djou, a Republican, won a special election for the Hawaii-1 Congressional seat vacated by Neil Abercrombie (one of my favorite Democratic Congressmen – he is hilarious and was a strong advocate for the maritime industry), who is running for Governor.  This is a big deal, if only because it represents the first time a Republican has held a Hawaiian federal elected position since the 70s.  This is the district in which President Obama was born (I expect Dan, RichmondDem or some of our other liberal commenters to make a snarky Kenya reference to this line), and went for the President by over 50 points.

.

What does this mean?  Well, it means exactly what the NY-23 race means: when one side that has an overwhelming majority splits their ticket between two candidates (one an insider, one an outsider), it allows the other side to squeak out a victory.  We just did to the Democrats in HI-1 what Democrats did to us in NY-23.  But don’t expect to see the massive coverage of the Hawaii race we saw of the NY-23 race on TV.  And don’t expect to see anyone calling out DNC Chairman and former part-time Virginia Governor Tim Kaine for his nonsense about Republicans not being able to win special elections either.  No one seems to want to point out to those who argue that PA-12 was a debacle for Republicans a major reason why:  there was a hugely contested and controversial Democratic Senate primary between Specter and Sestak at the top of that ticket that drove Democratic turnout.  We’ll see if Critz can hold Murtha’s old seat in November – just like we’ll see if Djou can hold his seat in November in Hawaii.  My bet for both is no.

.

But, for now, I think it’s pretty clear that Democrats better recheck their attempts to downplay the potential disaster awaiting them in November.  If things keep going the way they’re going, there’s going to be a lot of incumbents (hopefully Gerry Connolly is at the top of that list) who get retired this fall.  I remember seeing the look on many of my colleagues faces as we watched the 2006 returns – I’m hoping to see similar looks on the faces of my Democratic friends this year.

.

3. Blue Virginia is still saying really dumb things – Despite being banned for presenting an opposite point of view (and thus cutting into Lowell’s profit margin), I still visit Blue Virginia occasionally just to see what kind of left-field nonsense they’re putting up this week.  Today, Lowell is reporting on and repeating a transparent spin attempt by Fairfax County Democratic Party Chair Rex Simmons and Prince William Democratic Party Chair Pete Frisbie to claim that the 11th District Republican Committee canceled yesterday’s convention because party leaders are afraid the candidates will have a “Rand Paul” moment and say something extreme on tape.

.

And the Democrats attack us for out-of-left-field conspiracy theories?  “Rand Paul moments?” Seriously?  You’d think Simmons and Frisbie aren’t aware of the fact that Connolly’s campaign has had guys with video cameras following Herrity and Fimian around for months now to public events hoping to catch a Macaca moment.  And you’d also think they’d never considered it might be a good idea to cancel an expensive, time consuming, and resource draining convention when it’s not necessary, as this one wasn’t.

.

As a member of the 11th District Committee, I was ecstatic to have the convention cancelled, as I am sure most of my colleagues were.  All of us have heard Pat and Keith speak at least a dozen times in the last six months and there aren’t a lot of activists left who have not chosen sides.  One more convention with both sides preaching to their respective choirs – especially in a primary that has already been as divisive as it has been – isn’t a good use of either candidates’ time.  You don’t spend all morning on a precious Saturday speaking to a couple hundred folks who have already made up their minds.  That’s just a waste of resources and time.  Becky Stoeckel, our Chair in the 11th, is smart and capable and I’m completely confident in her leadership, as I hope the rest of our committee is.  She made the right decision here and it had nothing to do with “Rand Paul” moments or any other Democratic wishful thinking.

.

But hey, I can understand why Simmons and Frisbie are spinning.  When early polls show Connolly getting beat by both Fimian AND Herrity, they are going to say or do anything they can do to try to marginalize either candidate.  But, unfortunately for them and fortunately for us (and the rest of the country), it’s probably not going to make an ounce of difference.  Connolly will have an exceedingly difficult race, particularly for him considering he’s shed “buckets of blood” for the unpopular Obama White House and Speaker Pelosi over the last two years.  He better keep praying our nominee has a Macaca moment – otherwise he’ll be looking for work come November.

.

Tweet This Post 

.

There’s something especially hypocritical in Calderon’s criticism of Arizona’s response to his government’s complete failure to keep its citizens from unlawfully invading the United States.  And that’s not even the worst problem – the ongoing drug war between Mexico’s narco-syndicates and Calderon’s government has turned the border between Mexico and the United States into a war zone. Juarez, Mexico – the world’s deadliest city and a stone’s throw across the Rio Grande from the US – is ground zero of that war.  To put things in perspective, in 2008, there were over 1400 homicides in Juarez. The deadliest city in America in 2008, New Orleans, came in with 179 homicides, close to one tenth of the number of killings in Juarez.  This violence has spilled across the border, resulting in violent crimes and the deaths of Americans, including American law enforcement.  Would it be appropriate for President Obama to visit Los Pinos and criticize Calderon for his inability to maintain law and order in Juarez?  I don’t think so.  And apparently President Obama agrees with me. When he visited Mexico City and engaged in a joint press conference with Calderon, the President went out of his way to  praise Calderon for his “courageous” (yet ineffective) efforts against the narco-terrorists and then proceeded to criticize America by implying that we had not done “our part” in solving Mexico’s problem. Our failure, apparently, is the result of both America’s appetite for illegal drugs and our gun laws.  As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.  Read the transcript – search for the paragraph that begins “I have said this before…”  The President went out of his way not to criticize a country while enjoying their hospitality, and instead chose to criticize his own – something he seems to enjoy doing.  It’s a shame President Calderon couldn’t have returned the courtesy while enjoying our hospitality today.  It’s also a shame that President Obama didn’t call him out on it.  Because, like the drug problem, and to paraphrase President Obama, no one can pretend the illegal immigration problem that prompted Arizona’s law is the United States’ responsibility alone.

.

.

When it comes to illegal immigration, it takes two to tango.  At least 6 million of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States today come from Mexico.  Regardless of how one feels about the Arizona immigration law, no one can argue that at least half the blame for the illegal immigration problem rests squarely at the feet of President Calderon and his government.  The border has two sides.  Stopping illegal immigration requires efforts on both sides of that border.  Right now, Mexico doesn’t appear to be pulling their weight.

.

In his criticism, Calderon said Arizona’s law opened Mexicans up for discrimination.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it does, is Calderon really the best person to criticize it on those grounds? I don’t think he would consider Mexico’s own immigration laws discriminatory, despite Mexican law that allows the government to bar immigrants who would upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.”  As the article I just quoted notes, the Mexican immigration laws make ours look ridiculously lax – even if one includes the Arizona law (which, as I noted above, still hasn’t taken effect yet).  Mexico even bars foreign visitors from interfering in internal Mexican politics – so perhaps President Obama’s good manners were simply his effort at trying to keep from getting arrested for interfering with Mexico’s internal politics.

.

Personally, I would like to see President Obama take a page from Mexico.  Regardless of his personal feelings or his Administration’s response to Arizona’s law, President Obama is also President in Arizona.  And I would like to think that, at the very least, he would take umbrage with the idea of any non-American – especially the leader of a country that has criminalized foreign dissent within their borders – criticizing a law enacted within the United States by the people of a state.  This law was passed with support from over 70% of Arizonans.  Regardless of whether you or I like the law, or whether the President likes it, it’s a valid law in Arizona (until a court says otherwise), and it was enacted as part of the federally protected and insured republican government of the state of Arizona.  The President should call out Calderon for his inappropriate comments, and he should do it publicly, as Calderon did.

.

To put it another way, in the words of two great Americans in one of our greatest films – “Hey! He can’t do that to our pledges! Only we can do that to our pledges!”

.

Like the drug problem, illegal immigration is going to take work on both sides of the border.  Mexico isn’t pulling its weight.  Yet they criticize us for our response to it with impunity – in our house.  That’s just galling.  And to add insult to injury, the President of the United States ignores Calderon’s attack on Arizona, and proceeds to use it to set up an attack on Republicans in the Senate! Say what you want about George W. Bush – at the very least, you always knew he was on our side.  After seeing this press conference, I’m starting to think President Obama believes illegal immigration is America’s fault – if only we weren’t so much more successful than Mexico, they’d never want to come here. Is there any problem we face that isn’t our fault in his world?

.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big fan of being conciliatory.  Sometimes the best way to move forward is to admit that both sides have made mistakes.  But there are also times when you’ve got to back up your people.  Like the baseball manager who gets thrown out of a ball game by arguing with the umpire over a call he knows was made correctly just to back up his player, when you’re the boss,  sometimes you’ve got to do the right thing and call out someone – even a head of state – who oversteps his bounds.  Rudy Giuliani had no problem turning down a check for $10 million from a Saudi Prince who came to New York and criticized the United States during his presentation speech.  He was mayor of New York.  Why can’t we expect the same thing from President Obama?  Isn’t that part of his job?  Sticking up for America when we’re being criticized by hypocrites?  What’s next? Hu Jintao criticizing us about human rights at the White House?

.

I would call this whole business unbelievable but, unfortunately, I can believe it.

.

Tweet This Post 

Pennsylvania has retired Democrat-turned-Republican-turned Democrat and all around political opportunist Arlen Specter tonight.  This is great news for Republicans because it means the seat is firmly in the toss-up category.  Cue tomorrow’s media coverage about the “anti-incumbent mood,” etc.

.

If anything, this is a lesson to would be party switchers – if you do it when the environment is bad, it won’t save you.  While I can’t condemn every person who has switched parties, it is rare for anyone to have been so brazenly opportunist about it.  Pennsylvania deserves better representation in the Senate and I look forward to seeing a Republican in that seat come November.

Tweet This Post 

.

Kagan is considered a moderate/liberal, and has been called a “consensus builder” by some observers.  It will be interesting to see how she’s attacked.  There have already been articles attacking her – from the left.  Given her stance on unlawful combatants and executive power (she supports both), I can see why they’d complain.  The left is mainly concerned that she doesn’t have a deep record.

.

Personally, I would love to see her pull a reverse David Souter – be nominated by a Democrat and then drift to the right (Souter did the opposite). In any event, everyone better get prepared for yet another round of the typical silly season and Senatorial kabuki theater of a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on her nomination.

Tweet This Post 

.

The meeting was relatively drama free, with the only dust up coming in Springfield, where a number of members voiced displeasure in our District Caucus over the handling of the appointment of the Springfield District Chair. However, after a rare secret ballot, he was confirmed, as were all of the other District Chairs and Committee officers appointed by Chairman Bedell.

.

The meeting, which lasted approximately three hours, was a great chance for our revitalized committee to get together, meet with fellow activists and hear from the various candidates in our fall Congressional races.  With our new leadership team in place, the Committee is ready to hit the ground running as we prepare for the June 8th primaries and this fall’s general election.  We’ve got great opportunities to retire Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran this fall, and with the new leadership team in place, we will be pushing forward to meet those goals.

.

If you’re in Fairfax and you’re reading this blog, you should be a member of the Committee! Visit www.fairfaxgop.org for membership information or to purchase the bumper sticker above!

.

Tweet This Post 

.

I believe it is far too early to tell whether the federal response has been adequate, and far too early to begin condemning the Obama Administration and the President for it.  However, I do think the current situation presents an interesting topic of discussion about how the media and, in particular, the blogosphere  handles this kind of ongoing story.   And I think it also presents an interesting, as-it-happens view on how this Administration handles a crisis.

.

It makes sense that many – apparently on both sides of the aisle if the New York Times editorial is any indication – are already beginning to compare what is happening in the Gulf with Katrina. Given the location of the oil spill, it was inevitable that the comparisons would begin.  However, I doubt sincerely that this will be Obama’s Katrina, if only because no one in the media seems as willing as they were during Katrina to highlight the federal response.

.

When Katrina hit the Gulf, it was after 5 full days of warnings.  In the immediate aftermath, the Coast Guard and other agencies responded well.  However, once the levees broke and the damage became catastrophic, the slow federal response and the President’s failure to personally respond in a meaningful way almost single-handedly destroyed his second term. I recall seeing plenty of Democratic snark about the Air Force One flyover, and outrage in liberal quarters that as Katrina was hitting the Gulf Coast, Bush was helping John McCain celebrate his 69th birthday. He appeared woefully out of touch.  And he capped it off with “heckuva job, Brownie.”  All of this was documented in round the clock, 24 hour coverage, with criticism of the Administration coming from almost day one.  Just four days after Katrina made landfall, Kanye West was famously proclaiming that George W. Bush didn’t care about black people.  The criticism began almost immediately.

.

Here, the Administration apparently took the word of BP that the spill was not significant at face value, and did not take serious action until five days after the rig exploded and sank.  The potential damage is already being measured in the billions of dollars, and thousands of fishermen and oystermen may find themselves permanently out of work, not to mention the environmental damage.  Yet despite the potential seriousness of the crisis,  tonight, the President is at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, commonly referred to as “Nerd Prom” here in DC, cracking jokes.  Yesterday, the White House announced the President wouldn’t be visiting the Gulf “in the next few days”  and in less than 24 hours, the White House had reversed itself, saying the President was planning on heading to the Gulf on Sunday and ensuring his footprint would be “small.”  If the same firestorm of criticism at Bush over Katrina manages to stick to Obama, it is likely the images from the Correspondents’ Dinner will be used in the same way “heckuva job Brownie” is used against Bush.  I am very surprised that the White House did not cancel his appearance tonight.

.

Here are a couple of other things that I find interesting.  First, none of the top Democratic blogs in Virginia have criticized Obama for anything – not for his support for off-shore drilling, nor for the Administration’s response so far.  While Blue Virginia has made multiple posts about the oil spill, all of them have focused on Republican support for offshore drilling, attacks on Sarah Palin for the “drill baby drill” sloganeering during the campaign, and criticism of Governor McDonnell for his support for off-shore drilling.  Not a single word has been said about the President’s support for off-shore drilling.  Even Miles Grant, Blue Virginia’s self-proclaimed environmental expert, didn’t even criticize Obama for his stance on drilling.  Over at Not Larry Sabato, the exact same has happened. Not a single post questioning the President’s response to this crisis, but plenty of abuse heaped upon Governor McDonnell, and others, including yours truly, for supporting off-shore drilling.  Nor did Ben or any of the liberal commenters over at NLS criticize the President  for having said that oil rigs generally don’t cause spills after I drew their attention to the quote yesterday. It’s as if President Obama’s support for off-shore drilling and the Administration’s response to this issue don’t exist on those blogs.

.

Things aren’t much better nationally.  Daily Kos has plenty of posts about the oil spill – even one criticizing Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu for poo-pooing concerns about off-shore drilling – but criticism of the President is non-existent.  Other than the New York Times editorial, I have yet to see any significant Democratic criticism of the federal response in the media. In fact, Reuters is specifically saying the response hasn’t risen to Katrina levels yet, and Media Matters is mocking those who have begun calling the oil spill Obama’s Katrina by pointing out this is the 8th major crisis that some have tried to pin the Katrina moniker on, even going so far as to call the comparison “ridiculous” and “absurd.”  The only real criticism of the President’s plan seems to be coming from Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and handful of other Congressional drilling opponents.

.

The Administration proclaimed loudly and longly that they had learned the lessons of Katrina, most recently during the federal response to the Haiti earthquake.  Yet, given the NY Times criticism, at least some out there don’t think they have.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few days, particularly if the Coast Guard, BP and the rest of the federal responders are unable to cap the well.

.

If I had to guess at how Democrats will respond to conservative criticism, I’d guess it will go something like this.  First, this is all really BP’s fault, because they lied about the actual damage that occurred and waited far too long to ask for help.  As usual, big oil doesn’t care about the environment, just their bottom line.  Perhaps we’ll see something along the lines of “BP lied, seagulls died.”  In addition to blaming BP, I can see the Democrats blaming Republicans in the Senate for not approving more of the President’s appointees faster.  Had all of these agencies been fully manned and ready, that could have sped up the response.  I can even see the inevitable charges of “hypocrite” being heaped at the feet of Republican Governors Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour, two critics of the stimulus, for demanding federal help.  In the end, however, I think the primary scapegoats in this crisis will be BP, regardless of whether they deserve the bulk of the blame.

.

As I said before, I think it is too premature for any of us to begin attacking the Administration for what it has done or hasn’t done here.  But I can’t help but recognize what appears to be a double standard here.

Tweet This Post 

FCRC Chairman Anthony Bedell released his Leadership Team for the 2010-2012 cycle this afternoon.

.

The full list is available after the jump, but I wanted to take a few moments to highlight some of the changes from the past leadership team.  First, you’ll notice that there are quite a few new positions for the 2010-2012 cycle.  I think adding these positions is a great idea, as a Committee the size of the FCRC really needs to have a lot of involvement from its leadership, and spreading the amount of work over a larger number of people makes everything easier on everyone.  We’ve got an incredible amount of talent in this committee and I’m glad to see so many activists included.  One of the areas I am especially happy to see given greater attention is outreach.  My good friend Terrence Boulden will be heading up African-American outreach, and there are outreach coordinators for Latinos, Chinese, Women and Veterans.  You all know that I am easily frustrated by the Democratic attacks on the Republican party as being bigoted and racist, and I am looking forward to Terrence, Sasha Gong and the other coordinators to aggressively recruit new Republicans.  The FCRC represents a diverse group of activists and I am happy to see us focusing on outreach to a variety of  different key constituencies in Fairfax County.

.

You’ll also notice my name is on the list.  I’ve accepted the role of Communications Director for the Committee.  I’m excited to be able to volunteer my time to help Anthony and the rest of the leadership team as we work to elect Republicans across Fairfax County.  Given that my role represents a “public face” of the FCRC, I am, from this point forward, going to recuse myself from any more online advocacy of primary candidates for office.  As you know, I’ve been vocal about my stance on the 11th District primary.  However, it would be inappropriate for me to be handling communications for the FCRC while continuing my advocacy of a candidate online.  My endorsement still stands, but I am not going to actively comment on that or any other primary within Fairfax County.

.

I encourage everyone to come to the May 4th FCRC meeting at Robinson High School where Chairman Bedell is going to brief the entire Committee on the new leadership team and his vision for the next two years.   It’s a meeting you won’t want to miss!

.

Team Fairfax:

I am pleased to announce our new FCRC leadership team for 2010-2012. At our May 4th meeting I will provide detail and context on each appointment and committee and how they will each function and support the elected officials, candidates and membership. This structure is new to the FCRC and I believe weaving this “tapestry” together will not only harness the incredible talent and energy of our membership but it will also lead us to achieving our shared vision of the FCRC becoming a high performance political organization that is second to none.
.
Thank you for your continued support of the FCRC. Please feel free to call or email me with any questions, concerns or feedback.
.
Anthony Bedell
Chairman

.

.

The positions with a * are now “acting” pending approval of the membership at the May 4th FCRC meeting. Positions without an * are official as of 4/28/10.

.
FCRC Executive Committee
.
1st Vice-Chairman        Mike Thompson, Jr.*
.
2nd Vice-Chairman,
Membership & Administration    Mary Campbell*
.
3rd Vice-Chairman,
Outreach & External Affairs    Harold Pyon*
.
Vice-Chairman,
Budget & Finance         Jay McConville *
.
Vice-Chairman, Operations     Matt Ames*
.
Secretary             Inge Gedo*
.
Treasurer             Charles Proctor*
.
Parliamentarian         Jim Parmelee
.
VFRW                 Rebecca Pick
.
YR Rep                 Aaron Dahnke
.
CR Rep                 Kyle McDaniel
.
General Counsel            Chris Craig
.
Braddock District
Chairman        Larry Krakover*
Vice-Chairman        Ryan Kelly
Operations Chairman    Chris Craig
.
Dranesville District
Chairman        Gerrie Smith*
Vice-Chairman        Bill Smith
Operations Chairman    James Gable
.
Hunter Mill District
Chairman        Michael “Spike” Williams*
Vice-Chairman        Ryan King
Operations Chairman    Terrence Boulden
.
Lee District
Chairman        Susan Valentine*
Vice-Chairman        Tim Nank
Operations Chairman    Troy Schidler
.
Mason District
Chairman        Curtis Anderson*
Vice-Chairman        Cynthia O’Connor
Operations Chairman    Marc Rucker
.
Mount Vernon District
Chairman        Doug Jones*
Vice-Chairman        Dan Rinzel
Operations Chairman    David Kennedy
.
Providence District
Chairman        Matt Ames*
Operations Team        Brett Mason, Lillian Vogl, Steve Carpenter, Jim Ruland
.
Springfield District
Chairman        Will Nance*
Vice-Chairman        Christine Bolognese
Operations Chairman    Susan Falconer
.
Sully District
Chairman        Marc Cadin*
Vice-Chairman        Ralph Hubbard
Operations Chairman    Dottie O’Rourke
.
FCRC Representatives on Congressional District Committees
.
8th Cong District     Pat Malone/Susan Valentine, Alternate
10th Cong District     Anna Lee/Gary Baise, Alternate
11th Cong District     Anthony Bedell/Mary Campbell, Alternate
.
Elected Advisors to FCRC Executive Committee
.
The Honorable Barbara Comstock
The Honorable John Cook
The Honorable John Frey
The Honorable Tim Hugo
.
The following committees are the “support” committees to the FCRC Executive Committee and membership.
.
FCRC Recruitment Committee
** The full and subcommittees support the 3rd vice chairman
.
Chairman         Todd Spates
Vice Chairman         Rich Nilsen
.
Chair- Latino Outreach             Laura Drain
Chair- African American Outreach     Terrence Boulden
Chair- Chinese Outreach         Sasha Gong
Chair- Veterans Outreach         Darin Selnick
Chair- Womens Outreach         Gerarda Culipher
.
FCRC Finance Committee
.** This committee supports the Vice Chairman for Budget & Finance
.
Chairman    Marianne Horinko
.
FCRC Budget Committee
.** This committee supports the Vice Chairman for Budget & Finance
.
Chairman    Jay McConville
.
Vice-Chairman    Mike Thompson, Jr.
.
Braddock    Don Brown
Dranesville    Tyler Posey
Hunter Mill    Jo Thoburn
Lee        Darin Selnick
Mason        Harry Henderson
Mt. Vernon    Rick Neel
Providence     Jeff Agnew
Springfield    Geraldine Davie
Sully        Jason Chung
At large    Sevea O’Brien
At large    Mac Cannon
At large    David Skiles
At large    Irene Farquhar
.
FCRC Elections Committee
.** This committee coordinates with Fairfax BOE, campaigns on all election operations
.
Co-Chairman    Doug Boulter
Co-Chairman    Keith Damon
.
FCRC Technology Committee
.** This committee advises FCRC on updating technology infrastructure and external communications
.
Chairman    Krystal Weeks
.
FCRC Events Committee
.** This committee oversees and implements all FCRC events
.
Chairman    Julie Dime Adams
.
FCRC Membership Services Committee
.** This committee supports the 2nd Vice Chairman for Membership & Administration
.
Chairman    Dena Kozanas
.

_____________________________________

Chairman Volunteer Positions

** These two positions support the Vice Chairman for Operations
Director of Operations         Bob Carlson
Deputy Director of Operations     Darius Barakat
.
.
Director of Finance    Marti Meersman
** This position supports the Vice Chairman for Budget & Finance, and the FCRC Finance Committee
.
Director of Communications     Brian Schoeneman
** This position supports FCRC with communications efforts

.

Tweet This Post 

.

Alliance is an Oklahoma based mining company with mines in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia.

.

As I noted three weeks ago, coal mining remains one of the most dangerous jobs in America.  I sincerely hope that the inspection efforts the Obama Administration is undertaking in response to the Big Branch mine disaster earlier this month will help make these mines safer for the men and women who work them.  Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the lost men.

.

Tweet This Post 

.

Personally,  I support the bill 100%.  Puerto Rico deserves the continuing opportunity to determine their own future.  In an effort to provide a response to the conservatives who are apparently having a knee-jerk reaction against this bill, let me debunk a few of the myths that seem to be floating out there.

.

.

Myth #1 – This bill is being snuck through! No one knows about it! - This isn’t true. First, the bill is a repeat of a bill that was originally introduced in 2007 as H.R. 900.  Despite having bipartisan support and over 100 co-sponsors in the House and 15 in the Senate, the bill wasn’t voted on before the end of the 110th Congress.  The bill was reintroduced this Congress, and currently has the bipartisan support of 181 co-sponsors in the House.  How do you sneak through a bill that has almost half the House of Representatives as co-sponsor?  This bill has been floating around out there for three years.  That some folks weren’t aware of it, and there hasn’t been a whole lot of media coverage (between financial reform, immigration in Arizona and health care, there wasn’t much oxygen left for a bill like this) doesn’t mean it came out of nowhere or is being secretly passed at midnight.

.

Myth #2 – This bill guarantees they’ll become a state, and the rest of America will have no say! - This argument, frankly, doesn’t make any sense.  First, the bill only calls for a general plebiscite.  All Puerto Rican residents and all U.S. citizens born in Puerto Rico living elsewhere will be able to vote.  Statehood is simply one of four options they’ll have to choose from.  If they choose to remain in their current status, the bill provides for an automatic revote every 8 years.  If Puerto Ricans don’t want to become a state, they’ll vote against statehood and that’s the end of it.  The argument that “the rest of America won’t have a vote” – which, unfortunately, is even being made by lawyers at Heritage – is ridiculous.  Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides that Congress has to vote to approve statehood.  According to Brian Darling at Heritage, “A vote by members of Congress is not enough to indicate consent of the American people for Puerto Rican statehood.”  Apparently Mr. Darling seems to think that Puerto Rican statehood is somehow special and the Constitutional process that served to add 37  states to the Union since 1791 is “not enough to indicate consent of the American people.”   That’s an indefensible argument that mocks the Constitution.

.

Myth #3 – This is just a way to guarantee 2 new Democratic Senators and 4-6 Democratic House seats! – This, in my opinion, is the most offensive argument against this bill, and one that doesn’t hold up to any kind of scrutiny.  First of all, Puerto Rico is not a heavily Democratic state.  The leading political party there, the New Progressive Party, is majority Republican and very conservative, and the current Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, is a Republican.  Prior to being elected Governor, he spent 5 years as the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, which is generally equivalent to a Delegate position in the House of Representatives.  I worked with him quite a bit during that time period, and got to know him well.  He’s a good Republican and I was happy to see him win election to the Governorship by a landslide of over 200,000 votes – this in 2008, a horrible year for Republicans.   In terms of conservative policies, the people of Puerto Rico are very socially conservative.  According to recent polling (noted in Alex Castellanos’ article for NRO,)  “78 percent of the island’s residents are pro-life; 86 percent say prayer should be allowed in schools; 75 percent say displaying the Ten Commandments on government property should be allowed; a majority supports vouchers for private schools. An overwhelming majority of Puerto Rican citizens embrace socially conservative values.”  Does anyone honestly see them all jumping up and voting Democratic?  I certainly don’t.  When you’ve got 75%+ of their residents taking positions that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck would approve of, I don’t think making assumptions like this are even close to being fair.

.

This bill has the support of 57 Republican Representatives, not the least of which is Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference.   At its core, this bill is about allowing the people of Puerto Rico the same right to self determination we would want any American citizen to have.  That’s why for the last 50 years, every Republican President and every Republican party platform has favored allowing Puerto Rico the right to vote to petition for statehood if they so choose.  Personally, I believe every Republican should be out there  supporting this bill and welcoming the chance to admit another state to the Union.  Our party has always been the party of expansion and has long supported promoting democracy around the globe from Theodore Roosevelt to George W. Bush, and this bill does exactly that – it gives the people of Puerto Rico the right to determine for themselves if they want to stay as they are, become independent, or join the Union.  That’s inherently democratic and something we should all be supporting. Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United States, and they deserve the democratic right to choose their own destiny.

Tweet This Post 

.

One of the common themes coming from Democrats over the last few months was that the Governor’s many “missteps” – particularly the Confederate History month controversy, Ken Cuccinelli’s letter on sexual orientation, etc. would likely cost us the Northrup Grumman deal.  I never thought those arguments held much water, but that didn’t stop folks from making them.  Equality Virginia actually sent Northrop a letter advocating on behalf of Maryland specifically because of the LGBT issue.  Blue Virginia
basically said the deal was looking “more and more likely” that Virginia wouldn’t get the jobs because of the sexual orientation issue.  As usual, they were wrong.

.

My friend J.R. Hoeft over at Bearing Drift called the Northrop Grumman deal the McDonnell Administration’s “first big test.”  I agree with him, and I’m happy to say that it looks to me as if the Governor has passed with flying colors.

.

Thank you, Governor McDonnell!

.

Tweet This Post 

Tweet This Post 

.

This was clear three weeks ago, when the Democratic blogosphere tried to use the West Virginia coal mine disaster to bash McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli. After calling them out on it, I thought that, at the very least, they might choose to take the high road the next time a disaster happens and not try and find a tenuous link between the event and Virginia.

.

Clearly, I was being too optimistic.

.

This morning, Ben over at NLS puts up a one line story – “Thanks Bob McDonnell,” with the text of “Coming to VA soon…” with a link to an article about the tragic accident on a Louisiana oil rig that has left 11 oil patch workers missing.  What’s the connection between Bob McDonnell and this oil rig?  Nothing.  But, apparently, because Bob McDonnell has supported off-shore drilling, he supports oil rig accidents too, and because of his support, if anyone were to get hurt or, god forbid, die on an oil rig off Virginia’s shore line, it would be his fault.  That’s Democratic logic for you.

.

And, not to be left out, Miles Grant over at Blue Virginia wastes no time linking the story to Bob McDonnell as well.  As with the West Virginia coal tragedy, the bodies of the workers have yet to be recovered and we’re already seeing the Democrats using this accident in political attacks.

.

But why stop there?  I’m surprised that Ben and the other Democratic bloggers have only focused on man-made disasters.  Seeing as how all Republicans are evil, corporate shills who enjoy destroying the environment and causing global warming (it’s what we do when we’re not on the golf course or stuffing ballot boxes), I’m surprised they haven’t found a link yet between Bob McDonnell and the Iceland volcano.  Then again, maybe that’s really Bill Bolling’s fault, arranged so he could extend his trip to Italy and miss presiding over the veto session.  Or, perhaps, Bob McDonnell is truly to blame for the death of a beloved middle school principle in the District (we, after all, do support cutting administrative overhead in public schools).  And, of course, since Bob McDonnell is Catholic, he’s also to blame for the ongoing abuse scandal that has been rocking the Vatican for the last few months.

.

Sure, I know this sounds crazy – it is crazy.  But for some reason, the Democrats – at least online – seem to think that no matter how tenuous the link, any event that happens can and should be used to attack Bob McDonnell, Ken Cuccinelli and the rest of the Republican Party in Virginia.  West Virgina coal mine accident? Cuccinelli’s fault.  Oil rig blows up in Louisiana?  Blame McDonnell.  Your favorite American Idol contestant gets voted off? McDonnell did it.  Stub your toe?  Cuccinelli moved your furniture in the middle of the night.  It’s ridiculous.  But it doesn’t stop them from making those arguments.

.

I said it before, but apparently it hasn’t really sunk in – exploiting the deaths of innocent people for political gain is wrong.  And when I say “exploit” I am not arguing that we shouldn’t try and fix problems that become evident through a tragedy.  But attacking Bob McDonnell because of an oil rig accident in Louisiana because he supports offshore drilling, attacking Ken Cuccinelli because he’s taken campaign contributions from a mining company that owns a coal mine in another state involved in a disaster, or the efforts of gun-control zealots to close the “gun show loophole” by trying to tie it to the Virginia Tech tragedy goes too far.  It’s not trying to solve problems, it’s pushing a political agenda built on tragedy.  It was wrong when Republicans tried to tie non-national security related programs to 9/11, and it’s wrong now when Democrats use these tragedies for their own political gain.

.

This isn’t just a Virginia blogosphere issue, either.  Nationally, the Democratic leaning media has been exploiting the 15 anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and using it as a sotto voce way of attacking the Tea Party movement.  By trying to create a link between today’s anti-government rhetoric and Timothy McVeigh’s terrorism, they’re trying their best to lay the groundwork to blame any future domestic terror attacks at the feet of the Tea Party protesters.  It’s transparent, and it’s an insult to the hundreds of thousands of law abiding Tea Party activists, but that doesn’t stop them from doing it.

.

I’m tired of it.  It cheapens debate and injects unnecessary emotion into politics.  Accidents are, quite often, simply accidents and there’s no reason to try and link every accident that occurs to some disliked political figure or party.  It this kind of attitude – that government should protect us from every possible negative potentiality in life – that is slowly eroding the traditional emphasis on individual responsibility that has made America unique.

.

UPDATE: Both Ben and Miles have updated their stories in response to my comments here.  Miles writes “Brian over at Too Conservative says it’s outrageous that we keep using the deaths of workers to suggest maybe we stop doing things that kill workers.”  Well, Miles, if “we” had blown up the oil rig on purpose, you might have an argument here.  No one wants to see industrial accidents, especially those who are directly impacted by those accidents – the workers and the companies.

Tweet This Post 

.

That scene has always reminded me of the biggest pitfall of modern politics – being good at what it takes to get elected and being good at governing are two different things.  And what is said on the campaign trail to help bolster ones’ chances of getting elected can make it harder, if not impossible, to govern.  President Obama has learned this the hard way with his unnecessary bans on lobbyists in his Administration.  As I see the races for Congress in 2010 shaping up, I see our local candidates making the same mistakes – making an argument that is politically popular but, in reality, is both unnecessary and even counterproductive.

.

With the release of the Pork Book a few days ago (which notes that earmarks are actually down 10%), a lot of attention has been focused on the issue.  Locally, and most recently, Keith Fimian has assailed Gerry Connolly for his use of earmarks, and has pledged to both refuse to ask for earmarks as well as to support legislation banning them.  He’s also called on Pat Herrity to join him in this pledge, despite the fact that Herrity has already announced his support for the House Republican moratorium on earmarks.  I hope Pat refuses to take the bait and support an outright ban because Fimian’s argument – while appealing in its focus on Congressional excesses – is actually a pretty bad idea. I’m going to say something that many probably won’t like, but which I hope to convince folks to think about a little harder than they may have thought about the issue in the past:

.

There is nothing wrong with earmarks.  Earmarks are not the problem.  Overall spending is the problem.

.

.

Before you pick up the pitchforks and start marching on my house, think about that for a minute.  What, fundamentally, are earmarks?  They are a way for individual members of Congress to specify how federal funds will be spent in their districts.  Each member generally gets an opportunity to earmark a certain amount of funding for local projects in the various appropriations bills that are passed each year (assuming they are passed at all).  This process is usually done through form letter requests in member offices – groups, both local government, profit and non-profit groups, can submit requests to their members for an earmark, which are then reviewed by the staff, approved by the member and submitted to the various “cardinals” of the various Appropriations subcommittees. Or members can suggest earmarks on their own without a constituent request. If the earmark is accepted (and they don’t have to be – getting to pick who wins and loses is a big perk of being a subcommittee chair), they are generally included in the legislation in some form – either in the conference report, in a separate committee report, or in the text of the legislation itself.  Since 2006, steps have been taken to make this practice more transparent, by requiring identification of projects and who requested them, as well as putting them all online.

.

What is inherently wrong about this process? To be honest, nothing really. Fimian and candidates like him contend that these earmarks contribute to the pork barrel spending we see in Congress that has bloated government and ballooned our budget deficits.  They point to the “bridges to nowhere” and the Jack Murtha Airport with its 10 passengers a month.  Those are legitimate issues and poorly chosen earmarks.  But the problem isn’t the earmark itself, it’s who asked for it, how much was spent, and why. But here’s the bigger question: what’s a better alternative?

.

What Fimian and others who decry earmarks never seem to want to talk about is what happens if earmarks go away.  The answer to that is simple – the money is simply parceled out (as happens now for the vast majority of federal spending) to the various federal agencies directly. From there, either career civil servants or political appointee bureaucrats make the decision over where the money goes.  Those civil servants aren’t elected.  Those bureaucrats aren’t accountable.  The can do what they want with relative impunity and in relative obscurity.  Is that really a better system?  I don’t think so. It is much better to  know who is asking for the earmarks, what they’re for, and who they benefit in a transparent way. And it’s also better to have a democratically elected official who can be held directly accountable in elections every two or six years making those decisions, not unnamed bureaucrats who don’t answer to the taxpayers directly.

.

I’m sure some of you are answering my question of “what’s a better way” by shouting “stop spending the money!”  Sure, that’s a solution to the problem of bad earmarks, but it ignores the fact that most government spending isn’t in the form of earmarks. According to the Citizens Against Government Waste, earmarks represented $16.5 billion in 2009 – that’s a drop in the bucket of the $3 trillion+ budget and stimulus spending sprees the government has undertaken in the 15 months since President Obama has taken office.  Even if earmarks were banned, the savings wouldn’t even put  a dent in the deficit.  And we’d still have the issue of funding being parcelled out by bureaucrats, not accountable officials.

.

Clearly, the earmark process itself isn’t the problem (although many of them are unnecessary and represent pork barrel spending at its worst).  The problem is the overall spending levels.  In a time when every American family has had to tighten its belt, the Federal government has spent more than ever before.  In a time when working families across America are having to dig deep to pay their bills, the last thing they want to see are tax increases to pay for the questionable spending habits of federal officials.  Some earmarks contribute to this process, but many don’t.  The issue is, and always has been, the total amount of spending, not the ability of Congressional officials to determine how the money is spent.

.

Allowing Congressmen and women to have a say in how funds are spent in their district is not wrong.  In fact, it’s a great idea.  Who is in a better position to know where the money needs to go – a bureaucrat in Washington or the member of Congress who represents the district?  Is a political appointee living in Potomac, Maryland really the better decisionmaker when it comes to deciding between whether funds should go to repair a bridge in rural Arkansas or to add a lane on a highway in Idaho?  I don’t think so. I want Keith Fimian or Pat Herrity (or, worst case scenario, Gerry Connolly) out there fighting to get funds for Metro, for widening I-66, and for a variety of other necessary projects in Fairfax County that are necessary and not frivolous.  We pay taxes for a variety of reasons, and public infrastructure is one of the best of those reasons.  Why make it harder for folks in the 11th District to see a return on our investment in the Federal government?

.

It is critical that we hold legislators accountable for questionable earmarks and excessive spending.  But that doesn’t mean we have to end the earmarks process simply because some bad actors have made questionable decisions and especially when the alternative is not only just as bad, it’s probably worse.  Banning earmarks to solve the spending problem is like a dieter who throws out all the food he’s got in the house so he doesn’t eat it all.  Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to just exercise some self-control?  Isn’t that really what we should be looking for in our elected officials?  Not so much a willingness to give up power (power they need to do their jobs well) but a willingness to use that power wisely?

.

Members of Congress – and candidates – should focus their attention on making sure the money they are spending is spent wisely, not wasted, and not on frivolous projects.  The process isn’t really the problem.  So instead of signing or making pledges that make it harder to do the job one is campaigning for, I’d like to see potential elected officials spend more time proving that they’ve got the knowledge, experience, and understanding to be entrusted to do the job in the first place.

.

Tweet This Post 

.

Well, after multiple posts regarding an NPR story that both Lowell and Ben at NLS picked up regarding Massey Energy’s Tazewell mine in Virginia, I found my login to Blue Virginia was no longer working.  So I sent an email to Lowell Feld, the owner of Blue Virginia and received the following response:

.

“Brian: FYI, the executive board of Blue Virginia voted earlier today to ban (not delete) your account. The general consensus is that this is taking up way too much of our time, that your intent is clearly not to engage in serious debate, that much of what you say falls into the “whitewashing” category, that you’re posting way WAY too many comments, etc., etc.   – Lowell”

.

Now, I’ve been writing over here at Too Conservative for almost a year now and I think most of our readers recognize that I’m not a bomb thrower. I’ve had good conversations on a variety of issues with many Democratic legislators, including Scott Surovell, Bob Brink, and Mark Keam.  Even Ben and I seem to get along (although it was rocky at the start). But this is the first time I’ve ever been banned from a blog for any reason, especially for posting “too often” or for presenting my point of view.  I think it’s a pretty bad precedent for any blog to set to ban (even via a vote) contributors or commenters – especially known quantities writing without pseudonyms – simply for presenting a point of view that they disapprove of.  One of the reasons I gravitated to Too Conservative a few years ago when I started reading local blogs was that the site was open and there were folks on both sides of the aisle arguing and debating with no censorship.  I’ve found that encouraging commenters to engage in debate and discussion both brings more visitors to the site, but also enriches the content by providing points of view that may not be available to the author or the rest of the community – I know I’ve appreciated comments made by Dan, edmundburkenator, AFF and many other Democratic visitors even if we’ve disagreed. And while I recognize that all sites need moderation (you’d be amazed at the number of Russian spam LI, Cato, TC and I deal with on a daily basis), moderation shouldn’t be used to silence dissenting voices.

.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.  Seeing how Democrats, liberals and progressives respond to Republicans, the idea of treating someone on the other side of the aisle with respect and being accepting of foreign viewpoints doesn’t seem to be one that has a lot of support in that side of the blogosphere. Daily Kos (and  Blue Virginia) has a system where readers can rate comments, which allows for reader moderation of trolls but also opens itself up to abuse and viewpoint censorship.  Instead of blocking inappropriate comments, readers can choose to block out comments that they don’t agree with. That seems unAmerican to me. One of the most fundamental philosophies of American politics is that while we may not agree with our neighbor’s beliefs, we would fight for their right to express those beliefs.  It’s unfortunate that the “executive council” of Blue Virginia doesn’t believe in that philosophy.

.

We care about our readers here, on both sides of the aisle.  You all can rest assured that so long as you aren’t posting porn, threatening to sue one of us, trying to “out” one of the pseudonymous bloggers, or making threats, you’ll never see your comments censored or deleted – at least, not without a very good reason. And you certainly won’t be banned for commenting “too much.”  I love comments on my stories.  That’s what America is all about – debate and discussion.

.

Tweet This Post 

As we’ve watched the Democrats frothing at the mouth over the last two weeks about Governor McDonnell’s Confederate History Month proclamation while giving a pass to Senator Jim Webb’s unabashed love of the Confederacy, one of the things that has bothered me the most is the blatant hypocrisy of some in the Democratic party. I know this shouldn’t surprise me – both sides tend to say one thing and do another (Newt Gingrich speaking about ‘family values’ comes to mind), but when it is such a 180 degree change – particularly on an issue that seemed so core to the other side’s belief system, it still surprises me.

.

When I first read that President Obama had placed Anwar al-Aulaqi, the former Fairfax County cleric who now resides in Yemen and was linked to the Fort Hood Shooter and the Christmas underwear bomber, on a list of CIA approved targets, I wasn’t surprised. As an operational member of Al Qaeda, he’s up there with the rest of the Al Qaeda leadership on our hit list.  After a few seconds though, I realized that the President was basically authorizing the legal assassination of a U.S. citizen – without due process, without a jury trial, without any of the Constitutional protections that his status as an American citizen affords him.  And a quick search of Google showed that, other than Keith Olbermann and Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com, the great liberal punditocracy has basically ignored this story.  No wall-to-wall coverage.  No angry panels on Meet the Press. Why?

.

The more I thought about this, the more it bothered me.  While I am confident that al-Aulaqi is guilty, he’s an American citizen, and thus he has the right to a trial by jury to prove his guilt.  Even if he were charged with treason, and I think that’s a fair charge given his statements advocating attacks on U.S. targets, he’s still got a Constitutional right to have those charges heard in a court room, with the full panoply of civil rights any American so charged would have.  That’s the rule of law in our constitutional system.

that.

What is so hypocritical about the deafening silence coming from the left is simply the juxtaposition of how loud they were when the shoe was on the other foot. When President Bush claimed the power to detain American citizens without trial as enemy combatants indefinitely we heard denunciation after denunciation.  Even well known conservatives criticized the Administration’s claim, including “arch-activist justice” (in the words of liberals) Antonin Scalia when he dissented in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, arguing that “[t]he very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.”  And that was just for detaining American citizens without trial – not authorizing their outright assassination.

.

And, as Greenwald notes on Salon.com, even some conservatives, including Kevin Williamson at National Review Online, think Obama is going too far.  When Seymour Hersh started talking about secret assassination squads being run out of Dick Cheney’s office, the left was incensed. So where is the outrage now?

.

This isn’t warrantless wiretapping.  It isn’t “torture” or waterboarding.  It isn’t the accidental killings of civilians.  It isn’t indefinite detention.  We are talking about the authorized state sponsored execution of a U.S. citizen without a fair trial.  But apparently that’s completely okay, because this is President Obama we’re talking about.  He’s one of the “good guys.”  He’s not George W. Bush, commander of the forces of darkness.  It’s just like the difference between McDonnell’s omission of slavery in the Confederate History Month proclamation and Jim Webb’s wholesale lionizing of the failed state.  As Lowell Feld over at Blue Virginia says to explain his hypocrisy “[u]nlike Bob McDonnell, however, Jim Webb . . . has many other redeeming qualities, of which Bob McDonnell has none.”  Apparently having “redeeming qualities” exempts you from criticism when it comes to the Confederacy, and it apparently also shields you from criticism for authorizing the  assassination American citizens without due process.  So much for the benefit of having a Constitutional Law Professor as President.

.

This is the kind of thing that truly frustrates me.  As readers here know, I am not above criticizing Republicans when I think they’re making bad decisions.  And I am absolutely for holding our members to the same standards we hold the Democrats to.  I think the biggest cancer on the body politic is the wholesale acceptance of hypocrisy and the partisan defense of it.  When people think both sides say one thing and do another, criticize the other side but ignore their own side when they engage in the same behavior, and generally treat politics like some kind of game, they get turned off.  This is, in my opinion, the #1 reason why more people choose to self-identify as Independent rather than as Democrat or Republican.  When both sides are full of hypocrites, why associate with either?

.

If what Bush did was wrong, what Obama did is equally wrong.  And the same voices who denounced Bush have an obligation to denounce Obama.

.

Don’t hold your breath.

.

Tweet This Post 

According to the Washington Post, Gov. McDonnell has just announced a restoration of $750,000 in funds to the Department of Minerals, Mining and Energy (DMME) for mine safety inspections  – money that was slated for cuts under Tim Kaine’s budget proposal late last year.

.

I’m glad to see the Governor do this, as we have all seen the damage that can occur when mines aren’t safe. It’s unfortunate that even with mandated federal and state inspections, coal mining is still one of the most dangerous jobs in America.

.

Now, here’s a fun guessing game – if this were a Democratic blog, what do you think the headline of this story would have been?  Whoever comes closest to what’s in my brain wins a cookie.

Tweet This Post 

.

While the President, of course, can choose anyone he pleases to replace Stevens, I hope that he takes a moment and thinks about the make up of the court and chooses a candidate outside the box – and that box, lately, has been judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals with degrees from Harvard or Yale. All 9 current justices served on one of the Courts of Appeals before joining the Supreme Court.  While that gives them ample experience at the appellate level, it also gives them the kind of tunnel vision that those positions on Courts of that level tend to cause.

.

I miss the days when Supreme Court justices came from a variety of walks of life.  Some, like Justice Louis Brandeis (power lawyer) and Justice Abe Fortas (power lawyer and friend of LBJ), never served as judges at any point in their careers. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (Chief Judge, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) and Justice William Brennan were both justices of state Supreme Courts before joining the federal top court. And others, like Chief Justice Earl Warren (Governor of California), Chief Justice William Howard Taft (President of the United States), Chief Justice John Marshall (Congressman and Secretary of State) and Justice Hugo Black (Senator from Alabama), were politicians before joining the court.  These members gave the court a diverse background – not because of their race or gender, but because they didn’t come up through the exact same path to get to the Court. That gave them a wider perspective and unique views that often made the Court stronger. Warren’s political savvy helped the Court lend its gravitas to the civil rights fights of the 50s. Marshall’s acumen allowed the Court to navigate the treacherous fights between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists while expanding the Court’s role and power much farther than anyone had anticipated when the Constitution was originally ratified.  Brandeis and Holmes are considered two of the most influential Justices of all time, and I’ve read a score of their opinions over the last three years in a variety of areas of the law.

.

Regardless of whom President Obama selects, I would hope he would cast his net farther than the DC Circuit or some other Court of Appeals and look for a qualified person from outside the same old, same old. There are plenty of good state Supreme Court justices, members of the Senate and state Governors and Attorneys General who could lend a great deal of diversity to the court just by not being your typical Appeals Court Judge from Harvard. It is also important to note that Justice Stevens is the last remaining veteran on the Court – given the major role national defense plays, it may be good to have at least one justice with some kind of military background on the Court as well.

.

I’m sure we’ll see dozens of names being bandied about in the next few days and we’ll know far more about the eventual nominee than anyone really should. But in the end, I think Obama will be best served by choosing a dark horse candidate that helps to shake things up on an otherwise  homogeneous body.

.

Tweet This Post 

The Herrity campaign has released a new poll by the Tarrance Group of 400 likely GOP primary voters. With 37% undecided, Pat Herrity leads Keith Fimian 42% to 21% – double Fimian’s percentage in the race. A copy of the publicly released portion of the poll can be found here.
.
As the poll notes, these numbers are driven by far more than simply Herrity’s greater name ID – Herrity leads Fimian by 16 points with GOP primary voters who know both candidates and have an impression of both candidates.
.
A couple of other important things that came out in the poll. Of these voters, 81% approve of Bob McDonnell’s handling of his job as Governor – which seems pretty low to me. These are all GOP primary voters, so I’m surprised to see the number that low.
.
The poll was taken the week before the health insurance reform bill passed, so the top three issues voters were concerned about were “health care reform” followed by “spending,” and “jobs.”
.
Pat’s poll was done by the Tarrance Group, one of the best Republican pollsters out there. I’ve worked with groups that have used them in the past, particularly Brian Tringali, who teaches at my alma mater, the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University.
.
This is an interesting poll and I’m sure this race will start to heat up as June 8th steadily approaches.

Tweet This Post 

.

And, in news that should shock no one, the Democrats in the Virginia blogosphere have not even waited 24 hours before turning this story about tragic deaths of miners in West Virginia into a tool to bash Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.  Over at Blue Virginia, Lowell Feld writes “The fact is, Ken Cuccinelli and others in Virginia government – overwhelmingly Republican – are deeply in the pocket of Massey Energy and Don Blankenship, far more concerned with doing their bidding than in protecting workers, the environment, etc.” Ben Tribbett at Not Larry Sabato argues that Cuccinelli should open an investigation on Massey Energy’s mine in Tazewell, Virginia, and basically daring him not to.

.

This is pathetic. We have no idea what happened at this mine yet. Recovery operations are still underway. The bodies of the dead aren’t even cold yet, much less buried, and already the Democrats are out with their claws, trying to turn this against the Attorney General. Have they no shame? Have they no sense of what is right and appropriate? We have no idea what is going on here, yet they are quick to point the fingers at the Attorney General.

.

Why? I have no idea. Regulation of mines – particularly the health and safety – is generally handled at the federal level, by the Mine Health and Safety Administration of the Department of Labor. They are primarily responsible for regulating health and safety in mines, and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. While states aren’t preempted from regulating mines, if the provisions of the state law contradicts federal law, federal law wins. Why aren’t Lowell and Ben attacking Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis? She’s in charge of mine safety at the federal level. Why focus on the Attorney General of a state where the accident didn’t even occur?

.

I am sick and tired of Democrats using tragedies to advance their political agenda. They do this every time there is a mass shooting (gun control). They do this every time there is a natural disaster (global warming). As Rahm Emanuel says, “don’t waste a serious crisis.” So instead of being respectful, mourning the dead and letting the investigation determine what exactly happened, they rush out to condemn whichever Republican is at the top of their hit list. It’s wrong and it’s deplorable. Lowell even went so far as to ask “why, in the year 2010, we are still stuck in a 19th century energy economy (coal and other fossil fuels) instead of a 21st century one (energy efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.)” It’s just ridiculous.

.

Both Ben and Lowell should apologize to the families of the victims in West Virginia and to the Attorney General for not even waiting a day before trying to turn a tragedy into political fodder. And people wonder why so many are disgusted by politics?

.

UPDATE: President Obama just spoke on the accident – he asked people to pray for the safe return of the missing workers and “sending the deepest condolences” to the families. He didn’t mention Ken Cuccinelli. Go figure.

Tweet This Post 

.

I know that the idea of tinkering with the Constitution is one that doesn’t sit well with some people, and I think that hesitation is justified.  We’ve seen what kind of damage passing a poorly thought through amendment can do to the country.  But given the fact that any proposed amendments would have to be ratified by at least 38 other states, the chances of something truly outrageous being adopted would be minimal. Getting people thinking and talking about the fundamental document that creates our system of government is a healthy thing. We don’t do it often enough.

.

I think this is a pretty good idea – at the very least, it has the benefit of not having been tried in the last two hundred years. While I disagree with him on the need for a federal balanced budget amendment or for federal term limits, I’d like to see a line item veto amendment, or perhaps an amendment that puts some teeth back into the 10th amendment.

.

What do you think?

.

Tweet This Post 

With Keith Fimian and Pat Herrity going neck and neck in the 11th District, it seemed pretty unlikely that any other candidates would throw their hats into the ring for the chance to take on Nancy Pelosi’s adopted son Gerry Connolly in November.  And up until this morning, I wouldn’t have believed it. But I just received an email and a face-to-face visit from the newest Republican candidate to declare in the 11th district: Howie.

.

For those who may not know him, Howie has been a resident of Fairfax County for the last four years. He was born in Staunton and lived for a time in Alexandria. A lifelong Republican, he is a solid fiscal and social conservative. When I asked him who his political role model was, he didn’t hesitate to say “Ron Paul.”

.

I first learned of Howie’s intention to challenge Fimian and Herrity through an email I received this morning.  It read: “Dad, ken u post on too consurvitive i r runnin for conggres? Kthx.”  The email was followed up by about a half a minutes worth of crying, which is the typical means by which Howie obtains his breakfast each morning.

.

Following breakfast, Howie sat down with me to go over his campaign. Unhappy that neither candidate was what he considered to be a “trew catsurvitive,” and noting that continued species discrimination had left cats completely without representation in our federal government despite there being over 81,000,000 cats in the United States. With those facts in mind, Howie decided he had no other choice than to declare.

.

“Cats disurve reprepreesentashun in Conggres. Not taxatshun witowt cat reprepressentatshun!” he cried. In addition to his belief in the need for feline representation in the Congress, he also highlighted his strong support for the second amendment, his efforts in support of environmental conservation, and his desire to enact comprehensive legislation allowing cats a right to choose whether to be spayed or neutered.

.

Not wanting to fall down on the job as both a blogger and a law student, I asked Howie what legal precedent he would use to defend himself against the inevitable court challenges to his candidacy.  Given that he is not human, I informed him he was likely barred from seeking elective office.  He responded by arguing that after Citizens United, the Supreme Court had signaled its intention to protect the rights of everyone in the United States, even lifeless corporations, and he didn’t think it was that big of a stretch for the decision to encompass cats.

.

When I asked him how he would approach his colleagues and opponents were he to be elected, he said that he has perfected a fool-proof way of convincing humans to do what he wants – first, he purrs and looks cute. If that fails, he bites and meows constantly. When I asked him if he honestly thought he would be able to convince people like Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman using those tactics, he responded “Werks on u.”

.

Even as a unlikely a candidate as he is, Howie told me he is committed to working as hard as he can to bring his vision of cat representation to the Congress. It will be interesting to see how the other two campaigns react to the newest Republican to announce in the 11th.

.

Tweet This Post 

Saturday morning, my wife and I were up at the crack of dawn for the Fairfax County Republican Convention.  We both served as delegates – I was on the nominations committee, and she served, along with the rest of the Monticello Republican Women’s Club (and others), as part of the check-in crew for the over 200+ delegates, along with dozens of other members of the press, candidates, campaign staff and guests.

.

In addition to speeches from the various 8th, 10th and 11th District congressional candidates, the Convention elected Anthony Bedell to his second term as FCRC Chairman. I think it’s pretty impressive for a Convention to garner so many paid delegates in a year with no drama in the elections process – Bedell ran unopposed.  I know the PWC Convention, which was similarly drama-free, only had 45 or so paid delegates.

.

While I am happy to see Anthony get reelected, it wasn’t a surprise to me that I have already heard speculation swirling about the 2012 Chairman’s race. It seems like, at least for Fairfax activists, we’re always looking at the next race. Given the amount of drama in the 11th district primary already, I’m looking forward to a small rest after the June 8th primary.

Tweet This Post