Righty Blog Roundup: Tepid Defense For McDonnell

It took the Righty Blogosphere in Virginia 24 to 48 hours to formulate a defense for Bob McDonnell. Unfortunately, it is a fairly lame defense, and therefore not particularly interesting or challenging to answer.

I will note that I do sense a change in attitude over at the blogs run by my Conservative friends. This story has really taken the wind out of their sails, and their defense of Bob McDonnell seems half-hearted and obligatory, at best. That said, I’m not under any illusion that will last.

In any event, I think there are two reasons for this. First, Bob’s Manifesto is pretty indefensible, and his explanation that he has changed his opinion is not very credible, in light of his long legislative career trying to implement many of the ideas he sets forth in the document.

Second, I’d imagine that many Conservatives cannot be happy that McDonnell is running away from some core principles. Bob Marshall hit the nail on the head – by trying to pass himself off as a moderate, McDonnell is implicitly stating that there is something wrong with strong Conservative beliefs on social issues.

I would imagine many Conservatives would prefer to hear a strong defense of why mothers working outside the home is not a desirable state of affairs, or why an employer should be free to reject someone for a job because they are gay, and so on, rather than see the ostensible leader of their state party throw their principles overboard and meekly pander to what they see as the political correctness of a liberal media.

Frankly, that’s a debate I’d rather have as well, and one that I think would be much more meaningful and interesting to all voters, rather than the current election consisting of Mr. McDonnell to pretend he is someone he is not just to get votes, and Creigh having to spend an inordinate amount of time calling McDonnell out on his BS.

Anyway, over at Too Conservative, from VA Blogger we get a post entitled Deeds Not Words:

Funny that the Deeds campaign has turned their back on this maxim. As a student in the 1980s, Bob McDonnell wrote a thesis paper using words. As a legislator and Attorney General, you can evaluate his deeds.

That, of course, is the problem. When you look at McDonnell's actions as a Delegate and as AG, it is clear they are fully informed by the ideas contained and the strategy set forth in his Manifesto.

That’s pretty much all VA Blogger offers right now. He does provide a round-up of commentary from Conservative blogs (like this one, only different) that is definitely worth a look. In it he states, "I’m still putting together my thoughts on the decades-old thesis Bob McDonnell wrote, what (if anything) it means about the candidates, and how it will affect the campaign." So, presumably we'll see more on this from him.

At Bearing Drift, where the blogging tends to be, IMHO, less thoughtful and more reflexively partisan than at Too Conservative, The defense of McDonnell is a bit more spirited, with several posts addressing the thesis flap. The result, however, is more unintentional hilarity as opposed to a convincing argument, so you can head over there for some entertainment. “Bob McDonnell is a social conservative,” one post reads, “ He has never tried to hide that. He has been straightforward about his record throughout this campaign.” The author, apparently, holds the distinction of being the only person observing the race so far who failed to notice McDonnell trying to establish himself as a moderate, which, of course, is the issue at the heart of this Manifesto flap.

Also at Bearing Drift, Brian Kirwin makes an argument that seems to amount to complaining that Democrats are ... uh ... criticizing Republicans?

What? How dare we do that? What is this, an election or something?

Kirwin also brings out the old canard that Creigh and Democrats have no plan to address the challenges facing Virginia. This, of course, is ridiculous, and not worthy of response.

In fact, even Kirwin knows it is absurd, because later in the same post, he states, “On issue after issue, [Deeds’] polling has undoubtedly told him that his solutions are pretty unpopular with voters.”

Wait a sec, I thought Democrats did not have any answers. Now Kirwin says we do have solutions, only they’re not popular. I’m getting a contradiction headache.

In Bearing Drift’s world, I suppose, McDonnell has the solutions Virginians want. After all, who has failed to notice the public clamor to appoint Bill Bolling Chief Job Creation Officer?

Shaun Kenney, meanwhile, has chosen to ride the storm out by refusing to acknowledge it except in passing. So he doesn’t directly address the Manifesto flap; rather, he is on the trail of the Deeds employee who stupidly called McDonnell’s office posing as a reporter to get a copy of McDonnell’s daily schedule. An excellent use of time by Shaun!

Finally, at Virginia Virtucon, Riley did a great job of note-taking during yesterday’s McDonnell call. His notes give a much fuller picture of the call than any of the articles I have read.

If McDonnell thinks he put this issue to rest yesterday, he is sadly mistaken. Looking over Riley's notes, I am struck by the vapidity of McDonnell's defense. His position basically amounts to the following argument: “If there is anything I ever believed or did in my life that a potential voter doesn’t like, please be assured that I no longer believe that. And now since I said this, my record should be off limits.”

I don't expect this will pass muster with many in the Commonwealth's press corps.

In any event, my favorite part of Riley’s notes was McDonnell’s response when he was asked how he could reconcile his promise not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation with his actions in the Askew matter. Here are Riley’s notes on the answer:

WashPo summary of Askew case was incorrect. Documents will be sent to reporters to follow up. If complaints or issues were brought up in advance, those would be brought up in a hearing. After hearing, number of things brought to cmte. members that made them think Judge Askew should not be reappointed. Some things were not answered honestly in the questionnaire. Questions of temperment. Evidence of sexual harassment claim that Judge Askew had been accused of by an employee. Settled for $64K by City of Hampton. WashPo article said Judge was never found guilty in court — true, but only because it was settled out of court. McD never brought up sexual orientation. Vote demonstrated that Sen. Dick Saslaw voted against her. Top Cmte. Dem Sen. Janet Howell voted against Askew. Saslaw — what went on in there was as fair as can be. Quote attributed to McD was not correct. At the time, there was a law in VA before a S. Ct. decision, acts of sodomy were punishable as a felony. If someone who was a judge were convicted of a felony that would be a factor as to whether they would be reappointed. Quoted that homosexualtiy was not an issue, believe that there were already homosexuals on the bench. Only cares about whether they would follow the law. Original story was incorrect. WashPo did not do good reporting. Testimony and demeanor and settled sexual harassment claim were the issues. McD was on the same side as Saslaw and Janet Howell.

GOP Howl on Transportation: Taxing and Spent

Lawyers have a saying about the proper way to mount an effective argument at trial.

If the facts are against you, the saying goes, you pound on the law. If the law is against you, you pound on the facts. And if the law and the facts are against you, you pound on the table.

Yesterday, trying to defend Virginia Republicans against charges of inaction on the issue of transportation, William Howell, the Speaker of The House of Delegates, pounded on the table.

By way of background, last week Gov. Kaine published an article in the WaPo discussing the GOP obstruction on transportation funding in the House of Delegates. Sunday, Speaker Howell responded with a political rant entitled, “Virginia Republicans Kept Their Promises on Transportation.”

Teeing up his attack on the Governor, Speaker Howell begins by falsely accusing Kaine of “[attempting to tag] Republicans in the House of Delegates with sole responsibility for every failing of Virginia’s transportation system.” According to Howell, “In [Kaine’s] view, credit for all progress on transportation belongs to his administration and the federal government under President Obama.” Gov. Kaine, according to Howell, is a “partisan hard-liner.”

Hilariously, Howell then proceeds to claim, on behalf of Republicans, credit for all progress on transportation in the Commonwealth, and to attack Kaine and Democrats in the House for opposing the GOP because their proposals did not include tax increases, as if tax increases were an end in themselves.

To be fair, Kaine did lay some blame for the state’s transportation woes at the feet of the GOP, specifically, the decision “that we should not invest more state dollars in transportation.” He also asserts Republican legislators “rebuffed” his “efforts to get more money for statewide or regional needs.”

These, however, are not so much partisan attacks as they are simply statements of fact with which I suspect, were he not so intent in working himself up into an angry lather, Speaker Howell would agree. Indeed, Howell crows about the efforts to block the gasoline tax increase Kaine proposed during the recent special session of the General Assembly, so what exactly is the beef he has with Kaine saying exactly the same thing, albeit from a different point of view?

But, hey, why should the GOP let reality intrude at this point? In defending Republican performance against Kaine’s imagined attack, Howell asserts that House Republicans were the sole driving force behind such initiatives as public-private partnerships for pursuing transportation projects and land use legislation.

Hmmm. I wonder what Gov. Kaine had to say about these initiatives? Did he take “sole responsibility” for them, as Howell claimed?

Here is what Gov. Kaine wrote about public-private partnership and land use legislation: “These changes have been important and generally bipartisan in nature.”

Uh, okay. Perhaps Speaker Howell missed that sentence when he read the article.

More seriously, to understand Speaker Howell’s table pounding requires some understanding of the dynamics of the transportation debate, and the larger problem facing the GOP as it seeks a return to political relevance.

Whatever critiques may fairly be leveled against Gov. Kaine for his failure to fix the Commonwealth’s transportation issues (and there are some), and whatever good policies the House GOP may have supported from time to time (and there are some), the central fact is that the Republicans in the House of Delegates have blocked efforts to address the core transportation problem in the Commonwealth: the lack of new funding for desperately needed new transportation infrastructure, mainly in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

For the last several sessions, the GOP has supported various budgeting tricks that move non-existing dollars from one place in the budget to transportation, measures that relied on projected surpluses that never materialized, or measures that rely upon speculative revenue to be generated, if ever, years in the future, such as future revenue from off-shore drilling. But these are measures designed to give the illusion of providing new funding while doing nothing of the kind. Whatever the relative merits of off-shore drilling, given the controversy over it, is staking transportation funding on revenue derived from it a serious and responsible proposal, or is it political theater?

Needless to say, the Righty Blogosphere in Virginia, found Howell’s argument convincing and inspiring. Gov. Kaine’s, uh, not so much. “Bill Howell Kicks Some Ass,” gushed Too Conservative. The generally more sober Tertium Quids was less sanguine about Howell and the GOP, but it labeled Kaine’s mostly factual article “strange.”

In fact, Howell’s aggressive broadside was a signal that Bob McDonnell and the GOP will default to its stale and discredited tactic of anti-tax demagoguery to obstruct any effort to deliver new funding for transportation. No matter how minimal or necessary such funding might be, it will undoubtedly be characterized as “the biggest tax increase in the history of the world since forever.”™ Indeed, that counts for Howell’s, if misplaced, denunciation of Kaine’s supposed partisanship on the issue. The GOP’s anti-tax position is not intended as a rational argument over policy; it only works as a rallying cause against the evil of government.

Howell's rant also presages the upcoming election.

Consider this from the blog Mason Conservative:

So yes, please o' please Deeds and Dems, run on who's going to cut taxes and who's not. I want to talk more about your plan to raise the gas tax during on the worst recessions in a long long time. I want to talk about Deeds supporting raising vehicle registration fees I want to talk about Deeds supporting fuel tax in Northern Virginia, I want to talk about Deeds voting for the 2004 tax increase while Messrs. McDonnell, Bolling, and Cuccinelli all voted "NO." Over and over again, "centrist" "conservative" Rural Courthouse Senator Creigh Deeds has voted YES, YES, YES for tax increase.

So please, lets make who's more likely to raise taxes on the middle class be it directly, or through gas, or through fees a legitimate issue. Because on the back benches in the Senate, Deeds sat back and voted yes over and over on this.

I certainly don’t speak for either the Deeds campaign or Democrats generally, but that debate will spell Democratic victory in November. Sure, there is an element of the electorate virulently anti-tax to which this argument will appeal. But this election is not about their votes, which are not going to Sen. Deeds anyway.

The problem is that voters will not necessarily frame the question like Mason Conservative does. The salient issue will not be "who's going to cut taxes and who's not." The issues voters will more likely be concerned with are who has a positive agenda for moving the state forward? Who has pragmatic ideas for solving the transportation problems of the state? If my taxes will go up, what will they be used for? Who will level with me about all the facts so I can make an informed decision?

And so forth...

This election is about he votes of Virginia’s moderates, and thanks in part to the failed administrations of Gov. Jim Gilmore and, more recently, President George W. Bush, these voters have wised up to the tired and mindless anti-tax rhetoric anti-tax rhetoric of the modern GOP. People have come to understand that the cause of low taxes for their own sake, disconnected from a discussion of the policies and programs such taxes are meant to finance, is not a recipe for good governance.

Does the Mason Conservative really want to talk about the 2004 tax increase? Is there some way to gauge how voters feel about that. If only we could have a proxy election on the issue, like Mark Warner running against Jim Gilmore for statewide office, perhaps we'd get some insight into that question? Ah, well, it’ll never happen – I guess we’ll just have to speculate about what voters think.

More recently, given the severity of Virginia’s transportation problem, does Mason Conservative really want to discuss the gas tax? Consider the proposed increase beat back by Republicans in the House of Delegates during the special session.

The proposed increase was a one cent per gallon per year over the next six years.

To put that into some context, if the average person drives 12,000 miles per year, and assuming an average of 25 MPG, in translates into an additional $5 per year. That would be a total of $30 over the entire six year period.

Of course, some will be taxed more, some less, depending on a variety of factors, but that is the average.

I’m confident, presented with all the facts, voters will, as a general matter, collectively come to common sense conclusions. This year, Creigh Deeds and the Democrats will be having a serious and honest discussion with voters about setting the Commonwealth on a path of sustained prosperity and economic justice and opportunity for all, a path that begins with fixing our transportation problems.

William Howell, Bob McDonnell and Mason Conservative meanwhile, signal that they will just be pounding the table.

Conservative Incoherence at Virginia's Righty Blogs - UPDATED

I am still new at dealing with the Conservative blogs in Virginia, having spent my still young blogging career mostly immersed in Democratic primary battles. But my experience the last few weeks seeing the give and take between the Progressive and Conservative sides of the blogosphere has been illuminating.

For one thing, it has helped me better understand the crisis that seems to have overtaken the Republican Party and the Conservative movement. At one time, I thought this crisis was simply the result of the failed competence of the Bush presidency, but I am beginning to understand that the crisis, much like the failed Bush administration that precipitated it, results more from the intellectual incoherence of Republican policies than it does from incompetent implementation.

Take the recent contretemps over a post at Bearing Drift this past week by J.R. Hoeft stating that Congressman Tom Perriello “cast the deciding vote” to bring Guantanamo detainees to Virginia.

In truth, Rep. Perriello did nothing of the sort. He voted against an amendment that would have prohibited allocating funds to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The amendment was defeated by one vote, but it was less than clear whether any one Congressperson was “the” deciding vote. And as Rep. Perriello made clear, his vote was based on his moral, ethical, and religious principles, not arm-twisting or following the leadership.

But leave all that aside for the time being.

Because the post focused on “bringing detainees to Virginia,” Mr. Hoeft was clearly advancing an argument that Virginians should be afraid having the detainees in our midst because our prison system could not guarantee holding them securely, either because of lax security or a legal system that would defy all logic and reason by releasing them into society. Indeed, this has been the undercurrent of the whole “closing Guantanamo means bringing terrorists to America” argument, of which I assume Mr. Hoeft is aware.

Lest there be any mistake, Bearing Drift commenter Jessica Pruesser explained:

Several of the commenters here are missing the point about Gitmo. It is not just that they will be brought here, it is that when they are brought here they will be granted the rights of American citizens (which they are not) and then let go by some judge to roam around our streets and start new terrorist cells, because you know dang well that the fed will not be making sure they get sent back to wherever they came from. Which btw none of them want, because those people actually DO torture them.

There is, of course, a legitimate debate to be had about whether to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately, this is not it. This is just silliness and fear mongering.

So, I wrote a post calling the Bearing Drift post “patently absurd” and explaining my reasoning. Anonymous is a Woman, one of Virginia’s better bloggers, wrote a stronger critique, attacking the implicit assumption in the Bearing Drift argument that America’s prison guards could not adequately guard the terrorists.

That put Mr. Hoeft and some other righty bloggers in high dungeon, channeling their best Capt. Renault -- they were shocked, shocked I tell you, to be accused of fear mongering. It was, on the one hand, kind of amusing watching them cast about when confronted with the logical implications of their own unserious arguments, and my first instinct was just to sit back and watch them flop around helplessly like a fish landed on the deck of a boat, angry, defiant and without any defense whatsoever, save their anger and defiance.

But, ultimately, the sheer disingenuousness of it got to me, and so I am responding.

Here is the comment Mr. Hoeft, the author of the post at Bearing Drift that started it all, left at AIAW’s blog:

This has nothing to do with prison guards or their ability to keep us safe.
It has everything to do with wasting taxpayer money when we have a perfectly good facility at GITMO already doing the job.
It has everything to do with creating unnecessary demands on our local populations when we have to move the prisoner to the courthouse.
It has everything to do with granting U.S. rights to people sworn to undermine the U.S. system of governance and law and order.
It has everything to do with putting these prisoners in general population, allowing them to sew their seeds of hatred amongst U.S. inmates.
It has everything to do with the POTENTIAL of making the area surrounding the prison a target for outside terrorist groups and extremists.

Now we’re talking. Here are some serious arguments. Lets take a look at them, shall we?

Does this have anything to do with prison guards?
I never said it did. I’ll leave Karen to deal with that. My sense of her post, though, was that she was trying to make a point about the absurdity of Mr. Hoeft’s argument more than anything else.

Is GITMO a perfectly good facility?
That depends on what Mr. Hoeft means by “perfectly good.” If all he means is that it is serving its function as a warehouse for human beings to be securely maintained as prisoners, I’d agree.

But Guantanamo Bay has become an unfortunate symbol of an American justice system gone awry, one in which many innocent people, apparently including minors, have been imprisoned for years without any legal rights or review whatsoever. Prisoners have been tortured and abused there, as well. Forget whether or not this makes Guantanamo a recruiting tool for our enemies, there is simply no doubt that the prison, as a symbol, is clearly corrosive to our credibility and moral authority in the world, and is therefore impairing our international power and influence over the behavior of other nations.

But even if you disagree with that assessment, you must acknowledge that the perception I describe is a reality, and that as a result Guantanamo Bay cannot be characterized as “a perfectly good facility.”

Will unnecessary demands be placed on local populations when moving prisoners to courthouses?
Perhaps, but I’d disagree those demands are “unnecessary.” People are inconvenienced all the time in the name of ensuring Constitutional rights for despised minorities. This, more than anything else, makes America a great country, and it is a source of strength for us.

Also, the pragmatic aspects of this can be minimized in any number of ways, for example, by housing prisoners on military bases or at prisons that are not near population centers. In short, Mr. Hoeft’s argument that this would place unnecessary demands on local populations hinges on his assumption that authorities would implement this policy in the stupidest, most inconvenient way possible. Mr. Hoeft, apparently, is under the impression that George Bush is still President.

Will granting “U.S. rights” (whatever they are – I presume Mr. Hoeft means certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution) to people sworn to undermine the U.S. system of law and governance create some unstated difficulty?
I have no direct response to this “argument.” I don’t profess to be a Constitutional expert, but is Mr. Hoeft seriously suggesting that obsequiousness to the U.S. system of justice and government is a criteria for entitlement to Constitutional rights? If he is, and if it turns out he is right, he’s got me, and he wins the argument!

Will putting prisoners in the general population radicalize our homegrown criminals?
Personally, I suspect that the terrorists would have more to fear from being placed in the general population than we have to fear from the risk of them radicalizing American prisoners -- I’d imagine in the jailhouse pecking order that al Queda terrorists would rank somewhere below child rapists, -- but whatever, if this is a real concern, the detainees can easily be housed outside the general population.

Will the area outside the U.S. prison where detainees are held become a terrorist target?
Maybe, but all that will mean is that when given the opportunity to strike, terrorists would simply strike there rather than someplace else. There are already plenty of targets in Virginia.

Look, here’s the problem for Mr. Hoeft and his fellow travelers on this issue: When we seriously debate the merits of closing down Guantanamo, we quickly reach an impasse and it comes down to a judgment call. Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on my judgment or Mr. Hoeft’s judgment to resolve this issue. In America, we have elections to decide who will make the necessary judgments on questions like this, and we have, as a nation, elected Barack Obama as the President of the United States. And he has decided.

Which brings us full circle to Mr. Hoeft and his Republican cohorts resort to silly scare arguments rather than actual arguments on the merits, which they will lose. His position, as reflected in his initial and most revealing post on the matter, is not so much a brief against closing the prison as it is a wailing rage of frustration at the election of Barack Obama and the electoral losses of the Republican Party.

That explains why arguments advanced by an otherwise obviously intelligent individual like Mr. Hoeft are so draped in purported outrage, and so lacking in coherence.

UPDATE: Check out Drew's first rate research on this at his excellent blog, DemBones. As it turns out, all the fear-mongering had been specifically resolved in legislation passed a few days before the Guantanamo amendment that specifically prohibited the release of Detainees on U.S. soil, rendering the hysterics of the righty blogs even more disingenuous.