Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
What the new intelligence on Iran (if accurate) means (and it's not what you think)
After watching Tom Brady pull a rabbit out of his helmet last night, I took some time to ponder the new intelligence report that says the Iranian mullahcracy ended its nuclear weapons program in late 2003. A thought occurred, one that I believe shifts the entire paradigm of the WBK War (especially the Iraq theatre).
Wouldn't you know it; Victor Davis Hanson beat me to it (National Review Online - The Corner):
Lest anyone forget (and as Hanson notes), Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi handed over his WMD program in response to the American liberation of Iraq. Assuming the National Intelligence Estimate got this right, is it too hard to believe the mullahs in Tehran - faced with over 100,000 American troops just next door, took a similar course?
Meanwhile, it should be noted that the Khomeinists - even if they really did end their nuclear weapons program - have not stopped enriching uranium.
So why did they halt the weapons program, and why did they repeatedly refuse to cooperate fully with the United Nations' watchdog on this - the International Atomic Energy Agency?
I think the answer can, again, be found next door in Iraq. I'm guessing the Iranian regime was fairly confident that it could thwart any real UN punishment thanks to its friends on the Security Council (Communist China and Russia), when President Bush decided to liberate Iraq without the UN imprimatur, it likely forced some serious rethinking in Tehran. After all, if Moscow, Beijing, and Paris couldn't save Saddam Hussein, what chance would the mullahcracy, which was far more alienated from its neighbors to begin with, have?
So, if the mullahs really did put their nuclear weapons program on hold, this is the most likely reason.
As for continuing to play games with the IAEA, don't forget that while American troops are still there, so is the possibility (which increases exponentially if the Democrats win next year's elections) that they will leave defeated and hand Iraq over to the mullahs. Such an event would be a dramatic setback for American morale and power, so much that so that Iran could almost certainly resume its nuclear weapons program without any worries about an American military response.
You think that's far-fetched? Don't forget to tyrannical adventurism that followed the fall of South Vietnam. Convinced that America was on the ropes, the Soviet Union moved aggressively on any front it could find: Southeast Asia (Laos and Cambodia), Africa (Angola and Ethiopia), Central America (Nicaragua and Grenada), and of course, Central Asia (Afghanistan).
Iran would certainly take an American defeat in Iraq as a green-light to resume its nuclear-arms ambitions. By contrast, if America left Iraq with a functioning, representative, and anti-Khomeinist government, the mullahs would be faced with a pro-American regime next door with its eyes almost permanently fixed on then to make sure they weren't trying anything funny. Moreover, any military action taken against Iran in this scenario would likely include an Iraqi government far more popular within Iraq and outside it than Saddam ever was.
In other words, this new report (if accurate) has dramatically raised the stakes in Iraq. It has shown us that the resolve of President Bush (and the 62-million-plus who voted for him) has not only prevented the creation of an al-Qaeda haven in the heart of the Middle East; it has also thwarted the regional arms race that so many feared - and it will take the resolve of a new President to stay the course until the Iraqi people elect an anti-Khomeinist government in December 2009.
This report may have undermined the case for military action against the mulllahcracy, but it dramatically makes more imperative the need to finishing the liberation of Iraq - and to elect a President who is willing to do that.
Wouldn't you know it; Victor Davis Hanson beat me to it (National Review Online - The Corner):
The latest news from Iran about the supposed abandonment in 2003 of the effort to produce a Bomb — if even remotely accurate — presents somewhat of a dilemma for liberal Democrats.
Are they now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes? But to advance that belief is also to concede that, Iran, like Libya, likely came to a conjecture around (say early spring 2003?) that it was not wise for regimes to conceal WMD programs, given the unpredictable, but lethal American military reaction.
After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war . . .
Lest anyone forget (and as Hanson notes), Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi handed over his WMD program in response to the American liberation of Iraq. Assuming the National Intelligence Estimate got this right, is it too hard to believe the mullahs in Tehran - faced with over 100,000 American troops just next door, took a similar course?
Meanwhile, it should be noted that the Khomeinists - even if they really did end their nuclear weapons program - have not stopped enriching uranium.
So why did they halt the weapons program, and why did they repeatedly refuse to cooperate fully with the United Nations' watchdog on this - the International Atomic Energy Agency?
I think the answer can, again, be found next door in Iraq. I'm guessing the Iranian regime was fairly confident that it could thwart any real UN punishment thanks to its friends on the Security Council (Communist China and Russia), when President Bush decided to liberate Iraq without the UN imprimatur, it likely forced some serious rethinking in Tehran. After all, if Moscow, Beijing, and Paris couldn't save Saddam Hussein, what chance would the mullahcracy, which was far more alienated from its neighbors to begin with, have?
So, if the mullahs really did put their nuclear weapons program on hold, this is the most likely reason.
As for continuing to play games with the IAEA, don't forget that while American troops are still there, so is the possibility (which increases exponentially if the Democrats win next year's elections) that they will leave defeated and hand Iraq over to the mullahs. Such an event would be a dramatic setback for American morale and power, so much that so that Iran could almost certainly resume its nuclear weapons program without any worries about an American military response.
You think that's far-fetched? Don't forget to tyrannical adventurism that followed the fall of South Vietnam. Convinced that America was on the ropes, the Soviet Union moved aggressively on any front it could find: Southeast Asia (Laos and Cambodia), Africa (Angola and Ethiopia), Central America (Nicaragua and Grenada), and of course, Central Asia (Afghanistan).
Iran would certainly take an American defeat in Iraq as a green-light to resume its nuclear-arms ambitions. By contrast, if America left Iraq with a functioning, representative, and anti-Khomeinist government, the mullahs would be faced with a pro-American regime next door with its eyes almost permanently fixed on then to make sure they weren't trying anything funny. Moreover, any military action taken against Iran in this scenario would likely include an Iraqi government far more popular within Iraq and outside it than Saddam ever was.
In other words, this new report (if accurate) has dramatically raised the stakes in Iraq. It has shown us that the resolve of President Bush (and the 62-million-plus who voted for him) has not only prevented the creation of an al-Qaeda haven in the heart of the Middle East; it has also thwarted the regional arms race that so many feared - and it will take the resolve of a new President to stay the course until the Iraqi people elect an anti-Khomeinist government in December 2009.
This report may have undermined the case for military action against the mulllahcracy, but it dramatically makes more imperative the need to finishing the liberation of Iraq - and to elect a President who is willing to do that.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Virginia's runaway state spending gives the facade of frugality to - New Jersey
Eighteen years ago last month, two Democrats were elected governors in Virginia and New Jersey; both ran on promises not to raise taxes. Two months later, facing yawning budget deficits, New Jersey's Jim Florio imposed what at the time was the largest state tax increase in American history (New York Times). Within months, I left New Jersey to start my college education at William and Mary, and I found a local political elite convulsed in rage and depression because Virginia's Governor - Doug Wilder - refused to raise taxes and instead cut spending. I decided then and there that Virginia would be my home.
Well, today, which state is more frugal with taxpayer dollars? Is it Virginia, home to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and the legacy of limited government in America - a legacy that crossed over two centuries and made the first African-American elected governor one of the most underrated chief executives in American history?
Nope.
In 2002, as two new Democratic governors took over in these states (Jim McGreevey in New Jersey, Mark Warner in Virginia), state spending was roughly equal. Since then, however, as Warner supposedly made "tough" budget decisions (don't believe him, state spending rose nearly ten percent in Warner's first budget), as he then insisted on a $1.4 billion tax increase in 2004 (as spending went up nearly $10 billion), and as Republicans in the legislature came up with the transportation tax hike of 2007), Virginia's runaway state spending left the previously profligate Garden State in the dust.
New Jersey enacts its budget every year, while Virginia enacts it every two years (although there are amendments in the "off"-year). In Fiscal Year 2007, New Jersey spent $30.8 billion; in FY08, $33.5 billion. The total expenditure over the biennium is currently as $64.3 billion.
During this same two-year period, Virginia's spending stands over $74.2 billion - a difference of nearly $5 billion a year.
Mind you, New Jersey has had Democratic governors and Democratic-controlled legislatures during the last half-dozen years, yet with a larger population, they still managed to keep spending more than 13% below Virginia, despite our Republican-controlled legislature. Even the split General Assembly that will convene in January will give the GOP more power than it ever had in the New Jersey legislature since January 2002.
Kindly remember these numbers, dear readers, when Governor Kaine and his Republican enablers (they know how they are) insist on higher taxes.
Well, today, which state is more frugal with taxpayer dollars? Is it Virginia, home to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and the legacy of limited government in America - a legacy that crossed over two centuries and made the first African-American elected governor one of the most underrated chief executives in American history?
Nope.
In 2002, as two new Democratic governors took over in these states (Jim McGreevey in New Jersey, Mark Warner in Virginia), state spending was roughly equal. Since then, however, as Warner supposedly made "tough" budget decisions (don't believe him, state spending rose nearly ten percent in Warner's first budget), as he then insisted on a $1.4 billion tax increase in 2004 (as spending went up nearly $10 billion), and as Republicans in the legislature came up with the transportation tax hike of 2007), Virginia's runaway state spending left the previously profligate Garden State in the dust.
New Jersey enacts its budget every year, while Virginia enacts it every two years (although there are amendments in the "off"-year). In Fiscal Year 2007, New Jersey spent $30.8 billion; in FY08, $33.5 billion. The total expenditure over the biennium is currently as $64.3 billion.
During this same two-year period, Virginia's spending stands over $74.2 billion - a difference of nearly $5 billion a year.
Mind you, New Jersey has had Democratic governors and Democratic-controlled legislatures during the last half-dozen years, yet with a larger population, they still managed to keep spending more than 13% below Virginia, despite our Republican-controlled legislature. Even the split General Assembly that will convene in January will give the GOP more power than it ever had in the New Jersey legislature since January 2002.
Kindly remember these numbers, dear readers, when Governor Kaine and his Republican enablers (they know how they are) insist on higher taxes.
How about that - Anonymous Is a Woman and I agree on something
ASIW lent a post to Not Larry Sabato about the Venezuelan voters serving Hugo Chavez some surprising humble pie. She focused particularly on the youth movement that rose up against Chavez and thwarted his attempt to permanently remove all institutional obstacles to his power:
Indeed, as we argue, throw cyber-brickbats at each other, drive each other nuts, and otherwise entertain ourselves, we should remember that in many parts of the world, the vote is itself the thin purple line that holds back tyranny. In the most unlikeliest of places (Venezuela) it held back the tyrant this week:
Bravo, ASIW. I couldn't have said it better myself
These students’ actions are a testament to the power of grassroots activism in defending democracy from an encroaching dictator.
Indeed, as we argue, throw cyber-brickbats at each other, drive each other nuts, and otherwise entertain ourselves, we should remember that in many parts of the world, the vote is itself the thin purple line that holds back tyranny. In the most unlikeliest of places (Venezuela) it held back the tyrant this week:
At the end of the day, even long time Chavez supporters opposed his power grab. Here’s the Washington Post’s quote:
"People who have been with Chávez do not support the reform," said Elixio Fusil, who lives in a pro-Chávez district in western Caracas and voted against the reforms. "He wants a blank check, and that's impossible. We're not stupid like he thinks. It's that simple. There are conscious, thinking people here, too."That about sums it up! Nothing is more important than liberty and freedom. Without that there is no discussion.
Bravo, ASIW. I couldn't have said it better myself
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Why Ron Paul won
As one would expect, there is a lot of scuttlebutt over the results of the Virginia GOP Advance straw poll from yesterday. Those who support Ron Paul (including my new friend and fellow Republican Liberty Caucus officer, Rick Sincere) chalk it up to the "Ron Paul Revolution" coming ashore. Non-Paul supporters (such as SWAC Girl and Now at the Podium) are completely dismissive of the results, and have gone so far as to try and give the gold to Fred Thompson, who finished second (Shaun Kenney's post headline is a humorous expression of this).
Now, SWAC Girl and Rick S. are my friends; so it hurts to say this, but they're both wrong. I can't speak to the other straw polls Paul has won, but since I was at the Advance, I think I can explain what happened there.
First, though, I think I have to explain the deep division among the Paulites (my term). From my experience, there are two types of Ron Paul supporters: Republicans who support him, and non-Republicans who support him. Let's start with the first group.
Republicans who support Ron Paul: I happen to have met about fifteen of them at the RLC-VA meeting yesterday. They are earnest and dedicated activists who have been at this for a long time, and believe limited government should be the raison d'etre of the Republican Party (a view I share). They are largely non-interventionist on foreign policy, which should not be confused with isolationist; they generally believe America is too good for the rest of the world. While I disagree strongly with this view (non-intervention has been tried before in American history; the result was the War of 1812), I can at least understand the argument.
More to the point, outside of foreign affairs, these people are dedicated right-wingers. I presented my vision for the RLC-VA mainly on state issues, in particular the tax increases of 2004 and 2007. Not a peep of disagreement was heard (in fact, we had the secretary of the Virginia Beach Taxpayer Alliance in the room).
One other thing to remember, Ron Paul is running as a pro-lifer (which isn't as strange as it sounds; in New Jersey, for example, pro-lifers have been in control of the state Libertarian Party for at least a decade). This keeps the door wide open for numerous paleo-conservatives (or, to use their term, traditional conservatives) who swallowed very hard and stuck with President Bush in 2004 over social issues. They don't have to do that anymore.
As for non-Republicans who support Ron Paul, these are the leftist wackos that have given Paul his free media, his staying power, and a series of political headaches. They have no real idea of Paul's other views; for them it's all about the WBK War. The fact that Dennis Kucinich could speak so highly of Paul (Cleveland Plain-Dealer) reveals both the ignorance and the tunnel vision of this bunch. I try to avoid this bunch like the plague, and FWIW, at least one Paulite Republican told me he basically agreed.
So, how many of each group showed up yesterday? I'm sure there were a few of the lefty knuckleheads in the ballroom, and I bet SWAC Girl did indeed see some of them (as I was standing in the back, I couldn't see her or them), but I'm guessing overwhelming majority were the former. Why? I have three reasons.
Ron Paul cared about this straw poll: That goes without saying. The number of buses at hand is under debate (I doubt there were many), but there was a very strong movement in the web to make Paul sympathizers aware of the event.
No one else cared: The number of actual candidates who appeared at the straw poll was zero. One candidate had planned to be there (my man, Duncan Hunter) but that was it. The fact is, every other campaign's timeline stops on February 5 (I'm one of the very few people who believes the nomination may not be decided then). The "big five" (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Thompson) have no real reason to spend effort here (where the primary is the 12th) when it can be spent in a state that brings more immediate political dividends. The second and third place finishers prove this point - only Thompson (second) and Huckabee (third) sent proxies of any heft (Thompson had Senator Allen, Huckabee sent his wife).
Still, I don't think either of these reasons trumps the third one: the poll was held in northern Virginia. While northern Virginia is hardly a Republican bastion these days, a number of the conservative movement groups have their national headquarters here, including organizations most likely to have Ron Paul supporters in their midst. With a Republican establishment largely having ignored them for half-a-dozen years, they no longer have the bonds of loyalty to Bush - or before him, perhaps Gingrich - that would otherwise suppress support for an anti-establishment candidate like Paul. To find 200 people in this political grouping who support Paul would be a lot easier than most people realize, but more to the point, for all of them - whatever their number - this was a local event. It is quite possible that a straw poll in Richmond, Hampton Roads, or Roanoke might have had a different result.
What I saw was neither a revolution nor a raid by outside forces. I saw a dedicated group of Republican activists make their voice heard at an event uniquely tailored to them. I also suspect most of them will stay active, and since that means we can rely on them to stand with us against Tim Kaine's soon-to-be-introduced tax increases, I think that's far better news for all of us than my fellow non-Paulites realize.
Now, SWAC Girl and Rick S. are my friends; so it hurts to say this, but they're both wrong. I can't speak to the other straw polls Paul has won, but since I was at the Advance, I think I can explain what happened there.
First, though, I think I have to explain the deep division among the Paulites (my term). From my experience, there are two types of Ron Paul supporters: Republicans who support him, and non-Republicans who support him. Let's start with the first group.
Republicans who support Ron Paul: I happen to have met about fifteen of them at the RLC-VA meeting yesterday. They are earnest and dedicated activists who have been at this for a long time, and believe limited government should be the raison d'etre of the Republican Party (a view I share). They are largely non-interventionist on foreign policy, which should not be confused with isolationist; they generally believe America is too good for the rest of the world. While I disagree strongly with this view (non-intervention has been tried before in American history; the result was the War of 1812), I can at least understand the argument.
More to the point, outside of foreign affairs, these people are dedicated right-wingers. I presented my vision for the RLC-VA mainly on state issues, in particular the tax increases of 2004 and 2007. Not a peep of disagreement was heard (in fact, we had the secretary of the Virginia Beach Taxpayer Alliance in the room).
One other thing to remember, Ron Paul is running as a pro-lifer (which isn't as strange as it sounds; in New Jersey, for example, pro-lifers have been in control of the state Libertarian Party for at least a decade). This keeps the door wide open for numerous paleo-conservatives (or, to use their term, traditional conservatives) who swallowed very hard and stuck with President Bush in 2004 over social issues. They don't have to do that anymore.
As for non-Republicans who support Ron Paul, these are the leftist wackos that have given Paul his free media, his staying power, and a series of political headaches. They have no real idea of Paul's other views; for them it's all about the WBK War. The fact that Dennis Kucinich could speak so highly of Paul (Cleveland Plain-Dealer) reveals both the ignorance and the tunnel vision of this bunch. I try to avoid this bunch like the plague, and FWIW, at least one Paulite Republican told me he basically agreed.
So, how many of each group showed up yesterday? I'm sure there were a few of the lefty knuckleheads in the ballroom, and I bet SWAC Girl did indeed see some of them (as I was standing in the back, I couldn't see her or them), but I'm guessing overwhelming majority were the former. Why? I have three reasons.
Ron Paul cared about this straw poll: That goes without saying. The number of buses at hand is under debate (I doubt there were many), but there was a very strong movement in the web to make Paul sympathizers aware of the event.
No one else cared: The number of actual candidates who appeared at the straw poll was zero. One candidate had planned to be there (my man, Duncan Hunter) but that was it. The fact is, every other campaign's timeline stops on February 5 (I'm one of the very few people who believes the nomination may not be decided then). The "big five" (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Thompson) have no real reason to spend effort here (where the primary is the 12th) when it can be spent in a state that brings more immediate political dividends. The second and third place finishers prove this point - only Thompson (second) and Huckabee (third) sent proxies of any heft (Thompson had Senator Allen, Huckabee sent his wife).
Still, I don't think either of these reasons trumps the third one: the poll was held in northern Virginia. While northern Virginia is hardly a Republican bastion these days, a number of the conservative movement groups have their national headquarters here, including organizations most likely to have Ron Paul supporters in their midst. With a Republican establishment largely having ignored them for half-a-dozen years, they no longer have the bonds of loyalty to Bush - or before him, perhaps Gingrich - that would otherwise suppress support for an anti-establishment candidate like Paul. To find 200 people in this political grouping who support Paul would be a lot easier than most people realize, but more to the point, for all of them - whatever their number - this was a local event. It is quite possible that a straw poll in Richmond, Hampton Roads, or Roanoke might have had a different result.
What I saw was neither a revolution nor a raid by outside forces. I saw a dedicated group of Republican activists make their voice heard at an event uniquely tailored to them. I also suspect most of them will stay active, and since that means we can rely on them to stand with us against Tim Kaine's soon-to-be-introduced tax increases, I think that's far better news for all of us than my fellow non-Paulites realize.
Two more Republicans who DON'T get it are blogging
Marty Williams and Brandon Bell, two of the worst tax-hiking cipher to ever darken the door of the Virginia Senate Republican caucus before their local Republicans bounced them last June, have taken their whining to the blogosphere. Bell has taken up space at the Roanoke Red Zone, where he has taken to endorsing the worst Republican in the field, Mike Huckabee. I particularly liked this little euphemism:
That said, Williams is far worse. He had the audacity to call his blog Reagan's GOP, after doing more to turn the Virginia GOP away from Reagan's legacy of limited government than anyone else. Then, he uses the blog for a nasty, self-serving post in which he basically tells supported of limited government to get out of the party.
So let me set ol' Marty (and Brandon, for that matter) straight on a few things.
For starters, I have been a Republican volunteer for twenty years, longer than I have been a registered voter (and, more to the point, I've been a declared Republican eight years longer than you have, Marty). In that time, I have seen the party get deflated and crushed by the Bush 1990 tax hike, only to recover four years later when they found their way and became the party of limited government again.
I have also been a Virginia voter since 1993, so I know a little about those "hard-fought majorities" you claim. You might not like to hear it, but your first Senate majority (1998) came courtesy of Jim Gilmore, the only politician in Virginia to lead a successful tax revolt. It was voter anger at the car tax that (a) elected Gilmore, and enabled him to appoint Charles Waddell into his cabinet, which got the GOP its 21st Senate seat in the ensuing special election and (b) also elected John Hager Lieutenant Governor, thus giving the party control over the Senate even when it was split 20-20 (prior to Bill Mims winning Waddell's seat). The House majority was once again due to Gilmore, who moved heaven and earth in 1999 to get the GOP to 53 Delegates.
Without Gilmore, you wouldn't have been able to draw the Senate and House districts to give yourselves the substantial legislative majorities that you have since squandered away. It was the vision of low taxes and limited government that made the Republicans the majority party in Virginia. Once you and your fellow Senators moved away from that, the party's majority status was gone.
Of course, all of this may be news to Mr. Bell, since the voters bounced him after one term in 1995, and he needed one of those re-drawn seats to get back into the State Senate in 2003.
So, Marty, allow me to be blunt: you are the cancer in the Republican Party, and the surgery performed by Republican voters in your district successfully stopped you from sickening us any more. Sadly, some more political chemotherapy may be needed. If we do not rid ourselves of all tax-hikers like yourself, we will continue to lose; what is more, we will deserve to lose.
You want to help the Republican Party, Mr. Williams? Either disavow your tax-hiking history, or just stay away. It's your choice.
Huckabee faced tough challenges in his state--like how to raise revenue to pay for transportation infrastructure. Unlike the borrow and spend attitude in Washington, he chose the pay as you go approach.Translation: Mike Huckabee could raise taxes and get re-elected, so maybe if he's President I can get back into office, too.
That said, Williams is far worse. He had the audacity to call his blog Reagan's GOP, after doing more to turn the Virginia GOP away from Reagan's legacy of limited government than anyone else. Then, he uses the blog for a nasty, self-serving post in which he basically tells supported of limited government to get out of the party.
So let me set ol' Marty (and Brandon, for that matter) straight on a few things.
For starters, I have been a Republican volunteer for twenty years, longer than I have been a registered voter (and, more to the point, I've been a declared Republican eight years longer than you have, Marty). In that time, I have seen the party get deflated and crushed by the Bush 1990 tax hike, only to recover four years later when they found their way and became the party of limited government again.
I have also been a Virginia voter since 1993, so I know a little about those "hard-fought majorities" you claim. You might not like to hear it, but your first Senate majority (1998) came courtesy of Jim Gilmore, the only politician in Virginia to lead a successful tax revolt. It was voter anger at the car tax that (a) elected Gilmore, and enabled him to appoint Charles Waddell into his cabinet, which got the GOP its 21st Senate seat in the ensuing special election and (b) also elected John Hager Lieutenant Governor, thus giving the party control over the Senate even when it was split 20-20 (prior to Bill Mims winning Waddell's seat). The House majority was once again due to Gilmore, who moved heaven and earth in 1999 to get the GOP to 53 Delegates.
Without Gilmore, you wouldn't have been able to draw the Senate and House districts to give yourselves the substantial legislative majorities that you have since squandered away. It was the vision of low taxes and limited government that made the Republicans the majority party in Virginia. Once you and your fellow Senators moved away from that, the party's majority status was gone.
Of course, all of this may be news to Mr. Bell, since the voters bounced him after one term in 1995, and he needed one of those re-drawn seats to get back into the State Senate in 2003.
So, Marty, allow me to be blunt: you are the cancer in the Republican Party, and the surgery performed by Republican voters in your district successfully stopped you from sickening us any more. Sadly, some more political chemotherapy may be needed. If we do not rid ourselves of all tax-hikers like yourself, we will continue to lose; what is more, we will deserve to lose.
You want to help the Republican Party, Mr. Williams? Either disavow your tax-hiking history, or just stay away. It's your choice.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
A new chapter (on a few levels)
This afternoon, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia elected its officers for the year. I am deeply honored to be the new Chairman of RLC-VA. The other officers are: Greg "Bert" Mueller - Vice Chairman, Rick Sincere - Secretary, and Cliff Dunn - Treasurer. The turnout for the meeting was larger than expected, and I saw a few friends from the blogosphere there, including Shaun Kenney and Leslie Carbone.
I, for one, am looking very forward to making RLC-VA a force in ensuring that no tax increases come out of Richmond next year.
I, for one, am looking very forward to making RLC-VA a force in ensuring that no tax increases come out of Richmond next year.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Senate candidate or no Senate candidate, Chris Saxman still voted for a tax hike
By the time my next post is slapped up (or indeed, by the time you read this), Delegate Chris Saxman may already be a candidate for the U.S. Senate (Bacon's Rebellion and Too Conservative), and I'm sure he'll get plenty of buzz and plenty of support - including support from the blogosphere.
I, however, am compelled to remind everyone that Chris Saxman voted for HB3202, the transportation tax hike of 2007. As such, he both unreliable on limited government issues and all-but-certain to get crushed in the general election. I don't care if he's a "new face" - northern Virginia and Hampton Roads voters will vote against him just on HB3202 alone.
The alternative to Jim Gilmore is not Chris Saxman; it's Bob Marshall.
I, however, am compelled to remind everyone that Chris Saxman voted for HB3202, the transportation tax hike of 2007. As such, he both unreliable on limited government issues and all-but-certain to get crushed in the general election. I don't care if he's a "new face" - northern Virginia and Hampton Roads voters will vote against him just on HB3202 alone.
The alternative to Jim Gilmore is not Chris Saxman; it's Bob Marshall.
I guess I'll be able to enjoy myself after all
I'm taking a big risk by trusting Ben Tribbett (a.k.a. Not Larry Sabato), especailly since this is just too good to be true (CAPS in original):
Now, Tom Davis was one of the leading movers and shakers behind the HB3202 debacle and the subsequent pasting the party received on November 6. For him to claim that those of us who opposed this nonsense "want to destroy the party" is outrageous, ridiculous, and slanderous.
Still, as someone who'll be attending the Advance tomorrow afternoon, I'm too happy to care right now, because this means I won't have to endure Mr. Milquetoast.
So Ben, you better be right.
TOM DAVIS IS BOYCOTTING THE ADVANCE
HIS STAFF IS TELLING PEOPLE HE DOESN'T WANT TO MINGLE WITH PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DESTROY THE PARTY!!!!
Now, Tom Davis was one of the leading movers and shakers behind the HB3202 debacle and the subsequent pasting the party received on November 6. For him to claim that those of us who opposed this nonsense "want to destroy the party" is outrageous, ridiculous, and slanderous.
Still, as someone who'll be attending the Advance tomorrow afternoon, I'm too happy to care right now, because this means I won't have to endure Mr. Milquetoast.
So Ben, you better be right.
Constitution, shmonstitution, we're taking your money now!
The Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (one of the bastard twins spawned by HB3202 - the transportation tax hike of 2007) has decided to starting imposing taxes on northern Virginians before the State Supreme Court rules on the legality of said taxes (Washington Examiner, emphasis added):
Sadly, even one of the very few elected officials who stood up to this nonsense last spring is standing down now:
There is one voice of sanity quoted in the article:
Thank you, Mr. Snyder, for reminding us all that in a decision like this, bureaucrats like you always err on the side seizing more taxpayer money.Northern Virginians will begin paying new taxes and fees to fund transportation Jan. 1 even though the state Supreme Court will not have ruled on the levies’ legality.
The state’s high court is scheduled to hear arguments in January in a lawsuit challenging the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s power to impose the new taxes and fees.
. . .
“We realized we need to start right away,” said David Snyder, who heads the authority’s legal subcommittee. “We would rather have to deal with refunds than give up the revenue we would not collect during that waiting period.”
Sadly, even one of the very few elected officials who stood up to this nonsense last spring is standing down now:
“I am still opposed to the taxes and fees being collected, but if they are going to be collected, it seems to me that the NVTA should get on with its work,” said Del. Jeff Frederick, R-Prince William County, an NVTA member who fought the funding package.I can only assume Delegate Frederick was bored by his 59% victory a few weeks ago and wants the excitement of his 2005 nail-biter race back.
There is one voice of sanity quoted in the article:
"It shows how excited they are to raise taxes,” said James Parmalee, head of the Fairfax County Taxpayers Alliance. “Some of the fees would be easier to refund than others. It is one thing when the government has a record and can send you a refund check, but every single auto repair shop would have the burden of refunding money to all of their customers.""It shows how excited they are to raise taxes." I couldn't have said it better myself.
Put away the sharp objects over at Democratic Central - Murtha just complemented the surge
Almost a week ago, I noticed Democratic Central blogger cvllelaw making (at best) a stunning mistake on how the military releases information about Iraq.
During that particularly mistaken post, c-law cited the doves' favorite politician - John Murtha - to justify skepticism about DoD was telling us:
I can only imagine c-law's reaction to this (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, h/t Bruce McQain at Q and O and Jerry Fuhrman at From on High):
Now, Murtha still has issues with the Iraqi government, but then again, so do I. The important thing here is that Murtha's hell-bent opposition to our liberation efforts has literally frozen over. His fellow Democrats are already scrambling (Politico, h/t McQuain):
To say nothing about cvllelaw.
During that particularly mistaken post, c-law cited the doves' favorite politician - John Murtha - to justify skepticism about DoD was telling us:
. . . I find myself agreeing with Jack Murtha, who was on camera yesterday challenging a reporter who asked him about such reports. And Murtha's angry answer was, "And you believe them? You believe what they tell you over at the Pentagon?"
I can only imagine c-law's reaction to this (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, h/t Bruce McQain at Q and O and Jerry Fuhrman at From on High):
U.S. Rep. John Murtha today said he saw signs of military progress during a brief trip to Iraq last week . . . "I think the 'surge' is working," the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year.
Now, Murtha still has issues with the Iraqi government, but then again, so do I. The important thing here is that Murtha's hell-bent opposition to our liberation efforts has literally frozen over. His fellow Democrats are already scrambling (Politico, h/t McQuain):
"This could be a real headache for us," said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Pelosi is going to be furious."
To say nothing about cvllelaw.
Party registration bill introduced
Delegate Scott Lingamfelter has introduced a measure to bring party registration to Virginia, the very thing i recommended yesterday (of course, Lingamfelter did it before I said a word).
How much of a no-brainer is this? Well, when Greg Letiecq (a.k.a. Black Velvet Bruce Li) and James Young (see first comment) can both support it, the discussion is over.
How much of a no-brainer is this? Well, when Greg Letiecq (a.k.a. Black Velvet Bruce Li) and James Young (see first comment) can both support it, the discussion is over.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Phil Forgit? Forget it.
After I took a look at Lucky Narain (and came to the conclusion that he doesn't cut it), I figured I should, at the very least, give the Democratic nominee for the 1st Congressional District, Phil Forgit a once over. It took a little longer than I thought, largely because Forgit is even more of a cipher than Rob Wittman. Still, I was able to determine that Phil Forgit would definitely not get my vote, even if I wasn't bound by the pledge I gave at the 1st District convention.
Forgit is shrewd enough to reveal next-to-nothing about his views, but he does let a little seep out. Here's his comments to the Free Lance-Star (emphasis added) on the transportation tax hike of 2007:
Now, readers of this blog know full well that I can't stand the "transportation plan the Virginia General Assembly passed this session" - indeed, Wittman's vote in favor of it is the sole, and just deserved, reason I have been so hard on him. However, the notion that the better solution is more "state taxes" is yet another typical Democratic answer to a problem - throw more of your money at it and hope it (or you) go away. It was the same logic the Richmond Democrats had this year, when they only alternative they had to HB3202 was a statewide tax increase.
Then again, Forgit is the Democrat here.
Meanwhile, the only other time I can find Forgit talking about an issue (as opposed to his bio, which I admit is impressive) is his views on Iraq (Richmond Times-Dispatch, emphasis added): "Forgit said he would hope to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within two years but opposes setting a timetable."
Check out the timing there. "Within two years" means right before the Iraqi election of 2009, which as I have emphasized time and time again is the most critical event in the entire liberation effort. A drawdown as proposed by Forgit would be a huge boost to the Iranian-tainted parties that have congealed behind Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, while dealing a serious morale blow to the anti-Iranian opposition, both Sunni and Shiite.
A candidate who was aware of why so many Sunnis are now supporting us over al Qaeda - the President's heavy emphasis on ending Iranian infiltration in Iraq - would have recognized that pulling American troops out of there before Iraqi voters can bounce this government is a terrible idea. Yes, I now Forgit has actually served there, but he came home in 2006, before the President's anti-Iranian emphasis could take effect. Sadly, he appears not to have factored in Iran's meddling into his views on the subject.
No, I'm not going to use the rest of this post to praise Rob Wittman. My views on him have not changed. I will only say this: I am bound by my convention pledge to vote for him, but Forgit and Narain have made honoring that pledge a lot easier than I initially feared.
Forgit is shrewd enough to reveal next-to-nothing about his views, but he does let a little seep out. Here's his comments to the Free Lance-Star (emphasis added) on the transportation tax hike of 2007:
"You get this idea of broken government" when he knocks on doors and talks to voters, Forgit said in an interview. "We don't want the broken politics anymore."
He cited the transportation plan the Virginia General Assembly passed this past session--for which Wittman voted--as an example. He thinks it's bad public policy to approve a plan that imposes fees and local taxes instead of state taxes, and says voters shouldn't send someone who supported that to Washington.
Now, readers of this blog know full well that I can't stand the "transportation plan the Virginia General Assembly passed this session" - indeed, Wittman's vote in favor of it is the sole, and just deserved, reason I have been so hard on him. However, the notion that the better solution is more "state taxes" is yet another typical Democratic answer to a problem - throw more of your money at it and hope it (or you) go away. It was the same logic the Richmond Democrats had this year, when they only alternative they had to HB3202 was a statewide tax increase.
Then again, Forgit is the Democrat here.
Meanwhile, the only other time I can find Forgit talking about an issue (as opposed to his bio, which I admit is impressive) is his views on Iraq (Richmond Times-Dispatch, emphasis added): "Forgit said he would hope to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within two years but opposes setting a timetable."
Check out the timing there. "Within two years" means right before the Iraqi election of 2009, which as I have emphasized time and time again is the most critical event in the entire liberation effort. A drawdown as proposed by Forgit would be a huge boost to the Iranian-tainted parties that have congealed behind Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, while dealing a serious morale blow to the anti-Iranian opposition, both Sunni and Shiite.
A candidate who was aware of why so many Sunnis are now supporting us over al Qaeda - the President's heavy emphasis on ending Iranian infiltration in Iraq - would have recognized that pulling American troops out of there before Iraqi voters can bounce this government is a terrible idea. Yes, I now Forgit has actually served there, but he came home in 2006, before the President's anti-Iranian emphasis could take effect. Sadly, he appears not to have factored in Iran's meddling into his views on the subject.
No, I'm not going to use the rest of this post to praise Rob Wittman. My views on him have not changed. I will only say this: I am bound by my convention pledge to vote for him, but Forgit and Narain have made honoring that pledge a lot easier than I initially feared.
The "loyalty oath" and the history of Democrats messing up GOP nominations
I must confess to being a little surprised at the vehement reaction to the new Virginia Republican half-pledge for presidential primary voters. Leslie Carbone has been particularly scathing, but as she notes, she's not alone.
This is not to say I think the pledge was a good idea. I think Doug Mataconis (a.k.a. Below the Beltway) hits the nail on the head:
Indeed, "closed" primaries (which is where only registered members vote) is the better course.
That said, I am surprised that there seems to be so little concern for Democrats influencing the GOP nomination process. Limited-government supporters in particular have been badly burned by Democratic meddling, which - contrary to the ridiculously ignorant reporting in MSM - has been going on for well over fifty years.
In 1952, the party faced an enormous and painful task. With the Democratic party divided and foundering, American voters were looking to the Republicans for leadership for the first time in twenty years. The GOP itself faced a dramatic battle between General Dwight Eisenhower (the candidate of the party's pro-New Deal "left" wing) and Ohio Senator Robert Taft (the pro-limited government candidate and the favorite of the party's right).
During the nomination battle (as noted by Stephen Ambrose in Nixon - Volume I: The Education of a Politician (1913-1962), Southern Democrats took over some state GOP conventions in order to send their own delegates (who supported Eisenhower) to the national convention. The state leaders (mostly loyal to Taft) disallowed them because they were Democrats. Eisenhower - who didn't have a majority at the convention without the questionable delegates - convinced delegates from the other GOP candidates (Earl Warren - yes, that Earl Warren - and Harold Stassen) to support seating his delegates. He carried the vote, got his delegates, and cruised to the nomination on the first ballot.
Taft supporters were livid (many refused to support Eisenhower at all); more to the point, the best chance for a campaign on the wisdom of the New Deal (let alone the possibility of returning to the more limited government of the pre-1933 era) was gone. Eisenhower won the general election in a landslide, most of his southern "Republican" delegates went back to the Democrats, and the Eisenhower Administration largely aligned with the southern Democrats throughout the 1950s. As a result, federal spending began an upward spiral (it doubled - at least - in every decade from the 1950s to the 1980s).
For the record, I make no implication about Earl Warren's subsequent appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As hard as it is to believe now, Warren had a right-wing reputation back then (he had been a strike-breaking Governor of California), and his appointment was widely supported.
For Republicans worried about Democratic interference (at least those of us with long memories or an above-average knowledge of history), there is no better example than the convention of 1952. However, there have been other Democratic shenanigans. Fairfax County's history is replete with Democrats using the open primary to get the weakest GOP candidate nominated. Conversely, in the 54th House of Delegates District (my home district), supporters of tax-hiking Republican Bobby Orrock openly invited Democrats to vote for him in the GOP primary against his low-tax, limited government challenger (Full Disclosure: said challenger was my close friend, Shaun Kenney).
So the concern about Democratic interference is hardly paranoid or imaginary; on the contrary, it has a long history that should not be dismissed.
That said, the cure looks worse than the disease here. Since the VA Democrats are holding their own primary on the same day, cross-party interference is not very likely. Also, our primary is on the 12th of February, one week after the Super-Duper Tuesday of February 5, which just might settle both nominations. Finally, even if the GOP race is the only competitive one on the 12th (a scenario that is hardly impossible), it would take a lot of work for the Democrats to organize to the point of overriding the wishes of GOP voters, and it would be impossible to do so without it becoming public, and thus greatly devaluing the entire exercise. The conventions of old and local primaries were and are small enough for a concentrated group of outsiders to gum up the works; a statewide primary is, in my view, to big for something like that (otherwise, George Fitch would have done far better in the 2005 gubernatorial primary against Jerry Kilgore).
So, IMHO, the party should ask the state to change the voter law and allow voters to register with parties - on the condition that they can't change their registration until the following year (which is how it was, and I think still is, done in New Jersey, where I grew up). You'd be surprised how many Democrats will stay away from a Republican primary so they don't get labeled as a Republican for the ensuing twelve months (and vice versa).
This is not to say I think the pledge was a good idea. I think Doug Mataconis (a.k.a. Below the Beltway) hits the nail on the head:
Either change Virginia law to provide that only “registered” party members can vote in primaries or pick your candidate via convention.
Indeed, "closed" primaries (which is where only registered members vote) is the better course.
That said, I am surprised that there seems to be so little concern for Democrats influencing the GOP nomination process. Limited-government supporters in particular have been badly burned by Democratic meddling, which - contrary to the ridiculously ignorant reporting in MSM - has been going on for well over fifty years.
In 1952, the party faced an enormous and painful task. With the Democratic party divided and foundering, American voters were looking to the Republicans for leadership for the first time in twenty years. The GOP itself faced a dramatic battle between General Dwight Eisenhower (the candidate of the party's pro-New Deal "left" wing) and Ohio Senator Robert Taft (the pro-limited government candidate and the favorite of the party's right).
During the nomination battle (as noted by Stephen Ambrose in Nixon - Volume I: The Education of a Politician (1913-1962), Southern Democrats took over some state GOP conventions in order to send their own delegates (who supported Eisenhower) to the national convention. The state leaders (mostly loyal to Taft) disallowed them because they were Democrats. Eisenhower - who didn't have a majority at the convention without the questionable delegates - convinced delegates from the other GOP candidates (Earl Warren - yes, that Earl Warren - and Harold Stassen) to support seating his delegates. He carried the vote, got his delegates, and cruised to the nomination on the first ballot.
Taft supporters were livid (many refused to support Eisenhower at all); more to the point, the best chance for a campaign on the wisdom of the New Deal (let alone the possibility of returning to the more limited government of the pre-1933 era) was gone. Eisenhower won the general election in a landslide, most of his southern "Republican" delegates went back to the Democrats, and the Eisenhower Administration largely aligned with the southern Democrats throughout the 1950s. As a result, federal spending began an upward spiral (it doubled - at least - in every decade from the 1950s to the 1980s).
For the record, I make no implication about Earl Warren's subsequent appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As hard as it is to believe now, Warren had a right-wing reputation back then (he had been a strike-breaking Governor of California), and his appointment was widely supported.
For Republicans worried about Democratic interference (at least those of us with long memories or an above-average knowledge of history), there is no better example than the convention of 1952. However, there have been other Democratic shenanigans. Fairfax County's history is replete with Democrats using the open primary to get the weakest GOP candidate nominated. Conversely, in the 54th House of Delegates District (my home district), supporters of tax-hiking Republican Bobby Orrock openly invited Democrats to vote for him in the GOP primary against his low-tax, limited government challenger (Full Disclosure: said challenger was my close friend, Shaun Kenney).
So the concern about Democratic interference is hardly paranoid or imaginary; on the contrary, it has a long history that should not be dismissed.
That said, the cure looks worse than the disease here. Since the VA Democrats are holding their own primary on the same day, cross-party interference is not very likely. Also, our primary is on the 12th of February, one week after the Super-Duper Tuesday of February 5, which just might settle both nominations. Finally, even if the GOP race is the only competitive one on the 12th (a scenario that is hardly impossible), it would take a lot of work for the Democrats to organize to the point of overriding the wishes of GOP voters, and it would be impossible to do so without it becoming public, and thus greatly devaluing the entire exercise. The conventions of old and local primaries were and are small enough for a concentrated group of outsiders to gum up the works; a statewide primary is, in my view, to big for something like that (otherwise, George Fitch would have done far better in the 2005 gubernatorial primary against Jerry Kilgore).
So, IMHO, the party should ask the state to change the voter law and allow voters to register with parties - on the condition that they can't change their registration until the following year (which is how it was, and I think still is, done in New Jersey, where I grew up). You'd be surprised how many Democrats will stay away from a Republican primary so they don't get labeled as a Republican for the ensuing twelve months (and vice versa).
Shaun Kenney returns
The fellow who helped bring me into Spotsylvania politics (for which I'll never forgive him - just kidding) and the VA blogosphere (for which I'll always be grateful) is out of the straitjacket - ahem, position - of RPV Communications Director and back in the blogosphere.
Welcome back, Shaun.
Welcome back, Shaun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
