McDonnell opposes public option for Va.
BOB BROWN/TIMES-DISPATCH
Virginia Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell captured 58 percent of the vote last week and led a statewide sweep.
The morning after the House of Representatives narrowly passed a health-care bill, Virginia Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell said the "public option does not seem to be something that's going to help us in Virginia."
The national debate over health care was one of the topics McDonnell addressed during appearances on two Sunday morning shows -- CNN's "State of the Union with John King" and "Fox News Sunday" with host Chris Wallace.
The health-care debate now shifts to the Senate, where a version of the legislation could allow states to opt in or opt out of the public option. McDonnell said on CNN, "Either way, my preference would be not to have Virginia participate, from what I know this plan contains."
He added that more flexibility at the state level would be good and said he has outlined a number of things that could be done at the state level to help people have more access at a lower cost.
"I'm very concerned about turning this significant section of the American economy over the federal government," he said.
McDonnell, who won Tuesday with more than 58 percent of the vote and led a Republican statewide ticket sweep, was asked on both programs about what his win means for Republicans heading into the midterm congressional elections.
"I think one of the reasons we were very fortunate to win is we stuck to our conservative principles. We translated those into common-sense practical solutions," McDonnell said on CNN, also advising that people be "positive" and "stick to your word."
"I think if we do that, Republicans have bright days ahead."
In response to a question from Wallace about staying away from social issues while campaigning, McDonnell said, "I'm going to put the priorities that I outlined during the course of the campaign as the first order of business."
"But I was completely clear during the campaign that I am pro-life, I am pro-family and I am going to support those issues in the General Assembly. But I am going to focus on getting results on those campaign promises. I think that's the way you keep trust with the people."
He said he thinks "state policy ought to be the same as the Hyde Amendment," which bars the use of federal funding for abortion, and that he supports expanding the death penalty.
King asked McDonnell if he wanted to advance any new initiatives on abortion or governing same-sex marriage. McDonnell pointed to areas such as improving adoption laws, where "people on both sides of that issue think we need to find ways to reduce the number of abortions."
Wallace said some political junkies have already mentioned McDonnell's name for the short list of vice-presidential candidates for 2012 and asked if he harbors any national ambitions.
"I really don't," McDonnell replied, later pledging that he would serve his full four-year term. "I love Virginia. I've served in the state government now for 18 years. I've got a very ambitious set of policy initiatives, Chris, that I'd like to get accomplished."
"It's very flattering to hear people talk in those terms," he said, "but I'm going to focus 100 percent of my time on Virginia."
Contact Olympia Meola at (804) 649-6812 or
.
Political editor Andrew Cain contributed to this report.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
wpanak-I know that your suggestion about “grading” posts waswritten in jest and I appreciate the humor.
But I for one expect only one actual journalist in these forums.
I am sure there is a journalist’s web site where they can argue about parsing and phrasing and the use of ambiguity to ends justify the means ‘til the cows come home.
This is a place for newspaper readers to express their opinion on the same specific topic.
Some writers write beautifully and never manage to make a point.
Some make a terrific point that gets lost when the self appointed literary types skip the content and go straight to style.
The worst offenders in my opinion are the writers who designate themselves
psychoanalysts in residence.
It is possible to argue a position without attacking your protagonist personally.
Especially when that protagonist is a perfect stranger.
We are all different I know. And a certain tone or turn of phrase can make the hackles go up on the back of the neck.
But digging into the argument is where the meat is.
It can be very lively and informative
and still be congenial.
Writing is quite different from having a conversation where a smile or a slap on the back can make for a whole different feeling.
I can talk the hind legs off a donkey but translating those words into language that, on paper, will make sense to someone else is a real challenge.
Suffice it to say, expect the journalist to be above the blue line here.
And there can be great nuggets of wisdom in even the poorest prose.
armchair, and iBookmaster
You libs always use that lame argument, but it doesn’t hold up to cinstitutional muster.
The US Constitution authorizes expenditures to the military, it does NOT authorize the government to run any kind of welfare system, including healthcare. Article 1 Section 8 specifically enumerates what congress can do, and healthcare is not mentioned anywhere. See below:
<blockuote>
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. </blockquote>
mrright—I appreciate the time out.
However, my post at 10:16 does not contain an ad hominem argument. I stated that Randy’s argument has no logical structure. I did not say anything about Randy the person, or why he is the way he is.
Had I inferred that Randy was home-schooled and that is why he can’t develop a logical argument, that would have been ad hominem.
It also would have been an unfair swipe at families that home school their kids.
Just as your post was an unfair swipe at VCU students. Which is why I tee’d off on you.
My post does have a graphic metaphor. That was not intended to be a portrayal of Randy, but rather an example of original and creative wit. My intention was to both directly address Randy’s question concerning creative thinking, and illustrate some creativity. Perhaps I over-reached.
If that comes across as snide, that is your reaction, and not my intent. I will not apologize for your reaction. At the same time, I certainly will not apologize for your lack of understanding my intent, as I see that form of “apology” all the time and I find it distasteful.
Have I used that literary tool here recently? Yes. My bad. I’ll try to do better. I can also improve my tone and I will try to do that.
The one thing I will not do is blithely read through posts here and silently agree by failing to respond when others are using arguments that are incohesive, illogical, and rely on repitition of falsehood and half-truths.
If you see a liberal doing that, please alert me to it, and I will tee off on that. It will be good practice for me, sorta like trying to kick a soccer ball with the left foot (pun intended).
This all started with Will’s witty observation, and Randy’s casual dismissal. I have made my point and will move on.
And that is quite a legacy your uncle has given to our country. I am silently respectful and grateful.
wpanak…yeah #6 seems to be one of your favorites.as well(your 10:16 pm post for example).So give yourself the same failing grade.
Look…time out.
First, I also have many relatives who’ve served.My dad was in the Korean War,too.In the Air Force.
My uncle gave the ultimate sacrifice at The Battle of the Bulge.His name is on the Va War Memorial.My great,great,great Grandfather surrendered with Lee at Appomattox.So we all have much to be thankful for.
I honor your relatives service as well.
In all seriousness, I think we all are guilty of a little posting malfeasance from time to time, present company included.So what?
I think your obvious intelligence would be better illustrated if you could employ it to prove a point other than to berate everyone you disagree with.
But whatever.You have the same first amendment rights as the rest of us ...for now.
So do what you like.
But I would have to say that you are the’snarkiest’ poster on these threads, most of the time.
Is that your goal?
If it is give yourself an A+.
Congratulations, my friend.
mrright—that would be a #6 you are using there, the ad hominem, which is always easy to spot and always gets a failing grade.
But thank you for the citation on Ainsky, had never seen that before but it appears to be worth a review.
And Logic is in the Philosophy Department (Ohio State for me), Psych (Vanderbilt) taught me research methods and statistics, as well as social psych principles like diffusion of responsibility, authoritarianism, and typical human errors in problem solving (which is a completely separate area of research from symbolic logic).
BTW, both my parents served; my dad was on the front line in Korea, mom did 10 years between active duty, reserves and VA nursing, and my godmother retired Lt. Colonel in the Air Force. One uncle was a Marine (AAA battery) in the South Pacific in WWII, another uncle was Merchant Marines and at Omaha Beach on D-Day +2 (volunteered and replaced his younger brother who had been drafted by giving his younger brother his farm, as farm owners were exempt), and a third uncle also served during Korea. You will also find a Panak on the Vietnam memorial.
Randy…Hint: wpanak is using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals specifically #5 and # 13.
He learned that crap in the same Psych 101 course down at VCU where he got this little list of ‘fallacies’.
BFD.
When cornered he changes the subject faster than a speeding bullet.
I’d rather read one of your posts than his anyday.
And by the way,Happy Veterans Day.
We all appreciate your sevice and the bravery of those that gives us the freedom to quibble on these threads nite after nite.
Nowadays you can’t take that for granted.
greta—I’m holding you accountable for grading my posts.
Seriously, I’m interested in any logical flaws in my arguments. I know I will sometimes do that and the feedback is appreciated.
Randy—I noted the poor grammar as well as the qualifiers when I first read your post. I’m not surprised that you now rely on peculiar sentence structure and “qualifiers” to assert that you are correct and I am confused.
That’s a #1, I believe.
http://libarts.wsu.edu/philo/faculty-staff/holbrook/informal-fallacies.html
What I find fascinating is the form of your argument. First, you started off by saying other countries do not adopt our way of doing many things the right way, therefore we should not be surprised (nor gaze at our navels) when other countries do not adopt our health care finance system. Then, you cite 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendment rights as examples of “our way of doing things” without realizing those are not “our way of doing things” at all. Rather, those are ways of doing things across many cultures, and which predate the United States.
5th Amendment rights go back to the Magna Carta. 2nd Amendment rights go back to 14th century common law and predate firearms. And 1st Amendment freedom of speech can be traced to Islamic traditions of the first millenium, and before that to ancient Greece.
I don’t know what do do with your points on genetic crop engineering and China’s one child policy are simply bizarre. Are you saying that the United States created genetic engineering and reproductive rights, and that if other countries do not follow our lead and do as we do, then we can assume we have a better way of doing things?
Truly, truly I tell you, your logic is impossible to follow. It has no coherent structure, broken internal validity, and broken external validity. I don’t know where the informal fallacies end and the formal fallacies begin—the qualifiers and strange sentence structure makes it hard to diagram your arguments and know exactly where they break down. And that is all before we even get to the false premises and mis-statements of fact.
It is like coming upon a train wreck and finding human body in about 8 pieces, brain ejected from the cranial vault, both lungs ripped out of the chest cavity, heart and spleen a pulp of indistinguishable tissue, and all four limbs ripped from the torso, and then being asked to state the cause of death. All I can do is shake my head and say “cluster Fox”.
Now, as for your question to me about creative and original though, a few days ago I stated clearly that I thought the GM bailout could have been done better as a full-bore government takeover of GM under the umbrella of “national security” and the need to ensure continuity of production of military vehicles, then write laws and funnel research money to ensure GM is highly profitable, then sell GM for a huge profit that goes to the Feds. I didn’t read that anywhere and I wouldn’t know if Bill Maher or Keith Obermhann said it because I don’t watch their shows—I watch soccer and The Daily Show. That, along with my published original research, is my creative and original contribution, in addition to my efforts here to illustrate how your arguments make absolutely no sense at all.
There’s also not A LOT of countries that have adopted OTHER good things our country does, so I wouldn’t spend time navel gazing about it.
Please note the qualifiers. Some countries don’t have freedom of the press, other countries won’t use genetically engineered food, some countries don’t allow their populace to own guns, some countries limit the number of children a family can have, there’s not a lot of countries that have our concept of a 5th amendment.
By the way, you have failed to answer the issues I directed to you yesterday. Until you do, we’re done.
Everybody take notice and read the wpanak link.
We are all guilty of using 1 through
25 frequently.
There will be a test and grading after every post.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement