VCDL has a last minute alert for everyone who’s trying to decide between Allen and Webb on Second Amendment grounds. I’m passing it along without comment, except for one minor update which I also received from VCDL.
November 5, 2006
November 3, 2006
Following Chris’s lead, here’s how I plan to vote on Tuesday:
- Ballot Question #1: Marriage Amendment: No. Long-time readers know I’m not a big fan of gay marriage and am neutral on civil unions and domestic partnerships. I’m not big on making either policy preference democracy-proof, however, which is probably the only substanantive effect this amendment will have. It may have other effects, however, due to its horrible wording. All this to stave off far left judicial activism in a state that has never known it? Feh. Massachusetts and New Jersey need this amendment. We don’t.
- Ballot Question #2: Incorporated Churches: Yes. Apparently, courts have ruled that Article IV of our Constitution is … er … unconstitutional. This amendment would excise the unconstitutional portions of our Constitution, thereby rendering our Constitution constitutional again – unless, of course, the new marriage amendment is held unconstitutional, in which case this amendment will merely preserve the current level of unconstitutionality in our Constitution. Regardless of the merits of the ruling, it is what it is, the unconstitutional constitutional provision is inoperative, so let’s get rid of it.
- Ballot Question #3: Real Estate Tax Exemptions: Yes. This is the one I know and care the least about, but my knee jerk reaction is to vote “yes” on anything that expands the power of one level of governement to expand the powers of another level of government to tax its residents less. But I fully admit there could be more to the picture, so if you’re looking to change my vote on anything between now and Black Tuesday, focus on this measure.
- US Senate: George Allen. Webb’s pretty good as Democrats go, but the fact remains that Allen wants to keep your taxes low by making the Bush tax cuts permanent, while Webb does not. Allen opposes President Bush’s non-amnesty amnesty scamnesty. Webb does not. Most importantly, a vote for any Democrat Senator now is a vote to keep good, solid, principled judges off the bench for a generation to come. If you were disappointed to see Sam Alito confirmed instead of Harriet Miers, elect a Democrat controlled Senate, and if Justice Stevens retires during the remainder of President Bush’s terms, he just might nominate her again – and this time, she’ll be the best he can do. Don’t even think of sitting this election out or casting any protest votes. This race is going down to the wire.
- US Congress (Dist. 7): Eric Cantor. Cantor gets my vote because he seems like a good guy, and the campaign ads against him are dowright goofy. Besides, a vote for any Democrat in the House is a vote for Speaker Pelosi and a vote for throwing in the towel in Iraq. However, Cantor’s district is overwhelmingly Republican, so he’s in no danger of losing. If you feel like casting any joke or protest votes, here’s the place to do it. Write in Mickey Mouse, Bo Gritz, Xrlq, or whoever. Just don’t write in Tommy Flanagan, or they might think you intended to cast a serious vote for Jim Nachman. Better still, vote for Brad “Don’t Vote For Me” Blanton, just to spite him.
September 25, 2006
Today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch offers dueling op-eds on the marriage amendment, with businessman Ken Newsome arguing in favor of the amendment and liberal theologian Jack Spiro against. Or at least, I think that’s which side each is on. Each argument is so comically bad that I have to wonder if both individuals are really Rove-esque moles attempting to work for one side by discrediting the other.
- Shorter Newsome: Vote yes on the marriage amendment, ‘cuz Massachusetts and Vermont suck, and Virginia rocks.
- Shorter Spiro: Vote no on the marriage amendment, ‘cuz my Bible has everything crossed out except the parts about love, and besides, I served in the Air Force!
RTWT if you must, but be forewarned that your IQ will drop at least 10 points if you do. I don’t know if this effect is permanent or not, but why take the chance?
September 20, 2006
A discussion over at Virginia “Centrist” got me to thinking. Am I the only person in the world who would (and did) vote yes on this:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in [this State / Commonwealth].
… but would (and will) vote no on this:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this [State / Commonwealth] and its political subdivisions.
This [State / Commonwealth] and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this [State / Commonwealth] or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Just call me Mr. Nuance.
September 19, 2006
Jon Henke liveblogged yesterday’s debate, which I missed, and has posted several interesting comments since. Also interesting is that Webb appears to be behind Sen. Allen’s efforts to require states to recognize each other’s concealed carry permits. Cool. It’s nice not having that issue to worry about anymore. If the Allen/Webb initiative ever passes, I may make a trip to Frisco just to pack heat using my Virginia permit just to piss the locals off. They also have an editorial about Sunday morning’s debate, which left McKenzie et al. underwhelmed.
Somewhat less interesting are the comments of blogger Wlady at the American Spectator, who defines lying down by accusing Webb of lying in yesterday’s debate when he truthfully noted that his September 4, 2002 editorial on Iraq objected to the invasion of Iraq for reasons unrelated to WMD. Webb’s “lie” consists of saying in yesterday’s debate that he had written a piece in the Washington Post six months in advance of the invasion “laying out in my view this was not about WMDs, it was about our troops being turned into terrorist targets, and that there was not an exit strategy because the people in this administration who were doing this did not intend to leave,” when in fact the article in question was not about WMDs, but rather, it was about our troops being turned into terrorist targets, and that there was not an exit strategy because, in Webb’s view, the people in the administration did not intend to leave. Liar!
Ironically, Wlady concedes that the article in question made some valid points, but nevertheless ends with this lie wrapped in a non sequitur:
But nowhere — nowhere — in the op-ed did he utter a word about Saddam’s WMDs, let alone cast doubt as to their existence. So why the clumsy lie yesterday?
Oh wait, I think I know this one. Could it be because … he never claimed to have coast doubt on the WMDs’ existence?! Nah, it couldn’t be that. So why the clumsy lie today?
Finally, returning to the interesting stuff, Northern “Virginia” reporter Peggy Fox made herself the news by asking this
blatantly racist provocative question:
It has been reported your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended? Nah, scratch that, let’s cut to the chase. Are you now, or have you ever been, a Joo?
According to her bio, Fox “has a unique perspective for a Washington television newsperson.” I’d say so. Attempting to out a suspected closeted homosexual is old school, but attempting to out a suspected closeted Jew? That’s pretty damned unique.
September 17, 2006
Right now, Sen. George Allen and challenger Jim Webb are debating on Meet the Press. I’m a few minutes behind from a few TiVo pauses, so if that doesn’t suit you try checking out Jon Henke’s liveblogging instead (or better, in addition to). Probably a good idea to check in there anyway.
September 9, 2006
Apparently, California gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides takes exception to the idea that Latinas are hot:
But Democrat Phil Angelides, who is fighting an uphill battle to unseat Schwarzenegger in the November election, seized on the comments.
“Once again, Gov. Schwarzenegger has used language that is deeply offensive to all Californians and embarrassed our state,” Angelides said. “His comments reflect a disturbing pattern of behavior. The Governor has a responsibility to conduct himself with dignity. How dare he compliment that chick on her looks? She’s not ‘hot,’ dammit, she’s a Republican.”
For her part, Bonnie Garcia, the subject of Schwarzenegger’s verbal groping, appears somewhat less offended by the remark:
“I am not mad that he recognizes that I am passionate about the issues,” she said. “And I am not mad that he allows me to tell him exactly what I think and what’s on the minds of people in my community. Besides, have you ever seen me in a bikini? I am hot, and California deserves a governor who can appreciate that! Philsy, are you queer?
Meanwhile, here on the right coast, this should finally give Virginia Senator George Allen something to talk about besides his own excrement, which had been the sole campaign issue for almost a month. It seems Nancy Reagan has stolen a page from the King family’s playbook and claimed ownership of her husband’s Presidency, and is demanding that Allen’s challenger, Jim Webb, stop telling voters who he used to work for. Apparently the ad also contains an endorsement by a Reagan sound-alike. Watch for a new ad from Allen claiming endorsements from other guys who aren’t ex-Presidents but play them on TV.
September 6, 2006
Via VA Politics Blog, appellate judge J. Harvie Wilkinson has an op-ed against marriage amendments generally. He makes a decent case against marriage amendments generally, but I think a better case can be made against Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment in particular, which would add a new Article I, Section 15-A to the Constitution to read as follows:
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Just for grits and shins, the same legislators who thought we really, really, really needed a constitutional amendment to repeat what our statutes already made clear, and what none of our judges have challenged to date, also thought it would be cute to stick the marriage prohibition in the Bill of Rights. Here’s a brief summary of how our Bill of Rights will look like
if when this thing passes:
1. Right to life, liberty, and pursuant of happiness – unless you’re a poofter. Technically, poofters can still pursue happiness, provided the General Assembly makes sure they never attain it.
2. All power is vested in the people, unless they are poofters.
3. Government exists for benefit of the people – or at least, all people who aren’t poofters – and if found contrary to such purposes, may be abolished by the non-poofters among them.
4. No exclusive emoluments or privileges, offices not to be hereditary. No problem there; poofters tend not to reproduce, so pooftery is unlikely to be inherited anyway.
5. Separation of powers, periodic elections. No poofters!
6. All elections must be free. More specifically, they must be free of any legislation designed to benefit poofters, at least if such legislation looks, feels or smells like marriage.
7. Laws not to be suspended – even if they target poofters.
8. Right to speedy trial by unanimous jury by one’s heterosexual peers (or bench trial, at defendant’s option), privilege against self-incrimination, other basic procedural rights for accused criminals not suspected of being poofters.
8-A. Rights of crime victims, possibly to their families, but not if the family members are “family” by reason of pooftery.
9. No excessive fines or bails, no cruel and unusual punishment, no ex post facto laws, no bills of attainder – unless, of course, you count a bill attainting all poofters equally. No suspending habeas corpus unless you have a really good reason for it. Fear of pooftery probably isn’t a good enough reason, but who knows?
10. No general warrants, resulting in unreasonable searches and seizures. This one applies especially to poofters; there’s no telling what kind of kinky stuff you might find while unreasonably searching or seizing them. Eeeewww!
11. No deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law, right to trial by jury, no laws impairing the obligations of contracts, no takings without just compensation, and no discrimination by race, color, sex, national origin or anything else except pooftery. No poofters! Separate but equal bathrooms for men and women are OK, though, so don’t try suing over that, ya perv.
12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition for redress of grievances unrelated to pooftery.
13. Right to keep and bear arms – even for poofters.
14. No Hezbollah-esque state-within-a-state shall be formed, so forget about establishing gay marriage or civil unions that way, you poofters.
15. Citizens have rights to be straight as well as duties not to be gay, and public schools are neat-o.
15A. No poofters!
16. Freedom of religion, no religious tests for government. Testing for pooftery is fine, though.
17. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights shall not be construed to limit other rights of the people not therein expressed – unless you’re a poofter.
August 31, 2006
Congratulations to Jon Henke, the new netroots coordinator for Senator George Allen.
August 24, 2006
OK, it looks like my self-nomination was a bust. No one from the campaign has even called. Apparently, my ability to humiliate my opponents isn’t enough; they actually expect their blogger to help Senator Allen get votes, too. Who knew?
UPDATE: Good news, he got the gig.