Deeds’ staff says Democrat can overtake McDonnell

ProudAmerican24—I didn’t say any of those groups are facing big trouble. Rather, what I am saying is that it takes only one legislator to introduce an abortion restriction bill, or a budget amendment that reduces funding for preschools, or a bill that makes it illegal for state funds to subsidize daycare services to children of illegal immigrants, or a bill that attempts to divert public funds toward private schools. 

Bills like that get introduces into state assemblies in many states every year.  There’s no reason to believe that social conservatives will not attempt to push that agenda in the 2010 Virginia legislative session.  When they do that, it will be a liability to McDonnell.  If he pushes back on that legislation he loses standing with the conservative base that elected him.  If he supports those bills he will look like the “jobs and transporation” candidate who then became a two-faced social conservative who validated his thesis.  If he says nothing he will draw suspiscion.  If he questions the motives and intentions of those legislators he will look like he has no control over the Republicans in the assembly.

Once introduced, those bills will be an embarrassing distraction because the media will want McDonnell to comment on those bills.  Even if the bills don’t pass through the assembly and come to his desk for signature, McDonnell will have already been asked to weigh in on the merits of those bill.  He will not be able to escape scrutiny.  It will distract from his legitimate work on transportation and jobs.

It is a no-win situation for McDonnell, made even worse by the fact that there could be social conservatives that maneuver these bills simply to out-politic McDonnell, leaking soundbites and putting him on the ropes with the media while moving two steps ahead of him in the smoke filled rooms of the statehouse.

I will not be surprised if some Democrats side with Republicans for no reason other than to push an embarrassing bill to McDonnell’s desk for signature.

“Here Bob, sign this bill making it illegal for Virginia public colleges and universities to use taxpayer money todispense contraceptives or to make information on contraceptives available in the student health centers.“

Again, if nothing like this develops in 2010 general assembly, and if there is a clear economic recovery, including reduced unemployment, by mid-2011, then all that is not an issue.  But I do think this will be a jobless recovery and a long slog until we get back to a 3-4% unemployment rate in Virginia, taxes will have to be increased to support transportation and infrastructure, and McDonnell will not be able to hold the social conservatives at bay.

It doesn’t matter what happens to gays and immigrants.  What matters is McDonnell’s ability to govern through that type of administration.  It will not be easy.

Good one Witch Hunter.  Whenever I read that little phrase someone writes about “drinking the kool aid”, it sounds like there’s a lack of writing something intelligent so they fall back on this childish remark.  Tiresome simply isn’t the word for it.  I’m sure those that use it will grow out of it some day.  I much prefer reading the posts on here that have well thought out prose, whether I agree with the writer or not.

“So… you’re telling me Joe Wilson was wrong?“

No, Gil, in your heart of hearts you already know Joe Wilson was wrong. What I did was call you out on your hypocrisy and willful distortion of reality. The claim you made was ridiculous and the quickest cross referencing of actual facts is enough to send it packing. Speaking of crudeness:

“Me thinks you are partaking of the Kool-Aid a wee bit too much…“

That being a crude statement itself, I’d like to point out to you that Kool-Aid is so 1980s. These days people that are apt to fall in line with cultish belief systems are much more likely to be found drinking tea.

Bababooey—following your logic, Massachusetts would be a conservative state because it elected a Mormom businessman by the name of Mitt Romney to be governor. 

I think it is more reasonable to conclude that your answer shows no logical thought process whatsoever other than the fallacy of arguing from the specific to the general.  Most highs school students can see through that fallacy—why do you repeat it publically and embarrass yourself?

ProudAmerican24—c’mon, you can do better than that.  You’ve shown some insight and reason lately.  Don’t go to far extremes like chastity belts and public stonings.  The bills that social conservatives will introduce will not be of that ilk. 

But look at the Marshall-Newman amendment that social conservatives got onto the ballot in 2006 and which Bob McDonnell supported.  It was touted as an anti-gay marriage amendment.  However, it nullifies legal contracts and common law marital right established in other states if those people enter Virginia.  Not move to Virginia and establish residency, but simply enter the state.  And Marshall-Newman affects heterosexual couples as much as gay couples.

Think through this hypothetical:  A heterosexual couple from another state who have an established a common law marriage enter Virginia on I-95.  The husband and wife have signed living wills and granted each other durable power of attorney in case of such events.  Five miles inside the state, a traffic accident results in a life-threatening injury to the wife. 

The Virginia State Constitution nullifies those legal documents and leave it to the state to decide on how the wife will receive medical treatment.  The husband will not even have visitation rights at the hospital.

You can argue that this is an extreme and unlikely example.  I argue that laws need to be written such that unexpected outcomes are mimimized.  What I am asserting is that the “rush to a conservative social agenda” will result in more hasty and ill-conceived legislation that will be a distraction, cause embarrassment, and make it harder for McDonnell to deliver on his promises.

Note that I am not saying McDonnell will push the social conservative agenda.  I am saying that conservative legislators will push this agenda and it will be to McDonnell’s detriment, and likely to Obama’s benefit.

It is a classic example of “be careful of what you wish for.“  And it is not a one-party issue.  It is not something Democrats are immune from—it is going on right now in that the Deomcrats wished for Obama and majorities in both houses of Congress.  They even got a super-majority in the Senate.  But now they have trouble building a coalition.  They got what they wished for, but that doesn’t make everything work outwell.

While I sympathize with concerns about man-made global warming or climate change, I am amazed at how some zealots will casually characterize it as a “moral” issue!  What else is a moral issue to them?  Health care?  Gay marriage?  How about the Electoral College?

What I’m saying is that embellishing something such as global warming to the status of a “moral” issue is counterproductive, and makes me wonder what the real motivations might be behind such a declaration.