Four Years Ago: Dems Rev Up to Run for Governor. Today: Crickets.

So - - - (0.00 / 0)

So -- you're telling us that Virginia Democrats including the DPVA are doing nothing to crank up for the coming gubernatorial, Lt Gov, and AG elections?    But I thought the DPVA Chairman said he would contest every seat -- did I miss something?

---

by: CleetusMaggard @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 17:03:14 PM UTC

LOL (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 17:22:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the hunor, Cleetus -- even if Brian's failures aren't funny. (0.00 / 0)

When will we ever learn that we need a LEADER as DPVA chair, which according to my political dictionary means "lead by example". Failing to deliver not only on his promises that he would personally recruit HoD and state Senate candidates but even (falsely) claiming "his" candidates (meaning incumbents with little or nor GOP opposition in strong-D districts won re-election) meant the chair did a great job -- not, not, not ---  is not what any corporation would consider to be even marginally acceptable performance.

O.K., that's enough Brian-bashing (for now). I can only blame the Central Committee for not demanding the chair's resignation. But there is no reason for the Central Committee and the Steering Committee to ignore the need to recruit and FUND viable 2012 Congressional District candidates - starting with the 9th CD - and to start right now recruiting and (need I repeat ?)supporting statewide 2013 candidates. I am ready to start preparing for Terry's gubernatorial campaign, and working hard on a couple of Congressional races (especially the 9th CD if we can induce a good candidate to run) will keep me and a lot of other boots-on-the-ground grassroots volunteers fully energized and ready to roll for 2013 campaign work.

BUT ... the key to success in 2013 is much better leadership at the state level even if it means letting the paid DPVA staffers take control of the party operations with enough authority and resources to do what the unpaid elected DPVA "leaders" have chosen not to do.

Thanks for the opportunity, Cleetus, for me to get back on my soapbox to again emphasize that if we want improvement in our our sad and depressing state party performance it is up to US to cause these corrections to occur.

                     T.C.

---

by: Tom @ Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 19:44:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Related Question (0.00 / 0)

Tom Perriello's former district, the 5th, which is the largest district in the state is represented by empty suit GOP Robert Hurt who has family ties to the uranium mining industry. With the election not far off, why is there a similar silence from possible Democratic opponents ?

---

by: glennbear @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 17:23:43 PM UTC

Redistricting. (0.00 / 0)

After Repug redistricting, the 5th will be significantly redder, thus much more difficult for a Dem to win.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 17:31:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hope (0.00 / 0)

I do hope you are not saying that this is a valid reason for  qualified Democrats/Progressives not to run. Although it appears that a lot of folks have given up for similar reasons in state elections, we certainly do not need to do the same on the national level. If we do we might as well rename the country The United Corporations of America with the national motto being "In the Dollar We Trust".

---

by: glennbear @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 17:42:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not saying it's "valid," I'm just answering your question (0.00 / 0)

as to "why is there a similar silence from possible Democratic opponents?"

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 18:20:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not "Significantly" (0.00 / 0)

The Republican redistricting plan moves the 5th slightly in the Republican direction (1 to 2 points), but it's a stretch to call it "significantly redder."

The problem is that there's no Democratic bench in Southside and even potential candidates for smaller offices like House of Delegates believe (wrongly) it's hopeless to try to run. The Democratic bench in the district is limited to Charlottesville and I think the local Dems there believe that if Tom couldn't hold on in 2010 there's no point to even trying to run in 2012.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 18:28:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps, but I've heard over and over again (0.00 / 0)

from Democrats that the Republican redistricting will make the 5th unwinnable, so this is a perception out there that needs to e countered if it isn't true.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 18:41:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Depending on which map is eventually used (0.00 / 0)

Some of the CD districts could look very different.  That's why Virginia law says you need to redistrict by Dec 31 of this year - so there is time for candidates to get in the mix for the 2012 election.  Delaying it even into the spring really harms a lot of the districts, like the 5th and 4th, that would look quite a bit different depending on the map selected.

That said, with Obama and Kaine running, if there isn't a Democratic candidate in all 11 CDs next year, then something is very, very wrong.  Even in the 9th, we need someone running to keep Republicans honest.

---

by: NotJohnSMosby @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 21:27:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would have to disagree that folks (0.00 / 0)

believe wrongly that it's hopeless to run for offices like the House of Delegates in areas which are a part of the 5th District.  It's pretty dang hopeless!

---

by: pontoon @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 03:59:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

14th & 60th (0.00 / 0)

Both the 14th and 60th are winnable districts. The 14th should be a top tier recruitment goal for Virginia Democrats going into the statewide election in 2013. The 60th sounds more difficult, but it's exactly the sort of district we need to contest moving forward.

---

by: FreeDem @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 04:45:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It (0.00 / 0)

appears to me that the dems in VA are asleep. No big shakes in the gov. race, no one is interested much in the Senate race, no one stepping up or even talking about running for Lt. gov. or AG. Have we just given up? Or is there some huge behind the scenes strategy with the powers that be that we are not aware of?
I mean huh??? Quite the difference from 4 years ago when everyone was pumped. MEANWHILE the rethugs are full steam ahead on all levels.

---

by: VADEM @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 17:59:28 PM UTC

Not quite true... (0.00 / 0)

I've heard a number of people are encouraging Rich Savage, Jon Bowerbank, and Mike Signer to consider taking another run for LG.  

---

by: Isaac Sarver @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:02:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bowerbank should run against Griffith. (0.00 / 0)

We need a candidate in the 9th.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:58:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely Agree (0.00 / 0)

Bowerbank fits the attitudes of the 9th, even down to his business. Excellent fit.  

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 02:28:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Candidates (4.00 / 1)

In that PPP poll, the three tested Democrats (Tom, Gerry, and Terry) perform virtually identical to one another, despite a wide range in name IDs (41% for Tom, only 25% for Gerry). There are minor differences and I'm sure each might have different pro's and con's in a contested general election almost two years away, but at this point we're looking at generic Democrat vs. Bolling or Cuccinelli.

With the 25 point gap in name ID between Cuccinelli and Bolling, it's clear that voters already have a clear opinion of Cuccinelli as different from "generic Republican." Cuccinelli runs slightly higher than Bolling, but the biggest difference is he pushes voters undecided about Bolling into the Democratic camp. And this, based on the crosstabs, seems to be mostly Democratic voters who are undecided in the race with Bolling (they don't want to make up their mind with low information) who are clearly decided against Cuccinelli because they already have negative opinions.

I have more thoughts on this but I think they will be too long for a comment. Will post a diary soon.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 18:59:09 PM UTC

Comment, Not Diary, Part I- Warner (4.00 / 2)

Decided my thoughts warrant a series of comments, not a diary, because I think these are seeds of discussion that should be discussed and debated in the comments.

First, although I personally doubt it will happen, there are a lot of people that want Warner to run for Governor. Until Warner makes a clear Shermanqesue statement that he's not running for Governor, the possibility that he will run hangs over everyone else considering a run. I don't think Warner will want to make a statement until after the 2012 election, when he's able to make an objective decision of what 2014 (reelection) and 2016 (presidential) could look like for him.

My gut tells me that an Obama reelect makes 2014 worse for Democrats (historical trends) and the 2016 Democratic nomination less appealing (historical trends). Running for Governor, building up his resume for consideration as VP in 2016 (still a good boost to name ID even if the ticket might fail) and looking at 2020 (when Warner would still be in a reasonable age range to run) becomes a safer path for Warner if Obama wins.

If the Republicans win the White House, Warner's 2014 reelect looks better (historical trends) and the time in the wilderness for Democrats could help strengthen his argument that the party needs a more centrist nominee going into 2016.

Will the Republicans have an advantage if Bolling and Cuccinelli spend the next two years focusing on running for Governor, or will the long campaign give them more time to tear each other down. We'll see. Warner running for Governor could certainly help the Democratic Party win in the short term, but the confusion it creates on our side may delay making the difficult but necessary decisions we need to make in order to rebuild long term.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 19:15:45 PM UTC

VP? (0.00 / 0)

If Warner were running for the Republican nomination (insert cat-call of choice here....) then I think the VP strategy would make more sense.  But being on the losing end of a ticket for VP has been, to put it mildly, a Democratic historical disaster through most of my lifetime.  Mondale (worse defeat ever), Ferraro (ugliness during the 2008 primary), Lloyd Bentsen gets a pass (as far as I know...) the Gore (who won), then Lieberman (need I write it out?) and then Edwards (cough cough cough.)  

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:56:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Boost (0.00 / 0)

Being the VP, even for a defeated ticket, is a good boost for running four years later, but the candidate has to be smart enough to play his or her cards right.

Mondale locked down the 1984 nomination very early on, though you can argue that as a former VP he clearly was above and beyond just a VP nominee.

Ferraro's husband became such a scandal and negative drag on the 1984 ticket she undermined her own chances for 1988. If she had a better 1984 cycle I suspect she could have been a front runner in 1988, at least for a while.

Bentsen didn't run and never considered a run.

Lieberman was a leading candidate for most of of the 2004 primary, something I doubt he would have been able to muster if he was just a Connecticut Senator running for the nomination, and it was only the Iraq War that derailed his bid for the nomination.

Edwards was also a more significant candidate because of his exposure as the VP nominee, and the political smarts to move significantly to the left in the run up to the primary. Up against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama other candidates struggled to remain relevant; at least Edwards kept with them for a while.

If Warner were to serve as the VP nominee he'd have to ensure that there are no scandals in his past that would disrupt the ticket. Assuming he can manage that, and assuming he'd still want to run four years later, he'd have to at least ensure that he doesn't make any significant missteps that alienate him from the party.

Lieberman's missteps on Iraq not only derailed his bid for the nomination, they ultimately drove the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut to cast him out of the party. That's a very, very serious misstep. And a candidate who's able to make that sort of mistake isn't going to win the nomination, with or without the boost of being a former VP nominee.

I don't see any examples of a former Democratic candidate for VP being hurt by being a past candidate for VP. Instead, I see former Democratic candidates for VP who are ill-served by skeletons in their closet or poor political choices.

In any case, if being VP in 2016 seems like a bad plan for Warner, I'd assume he'd be smart enough to just sit back and let the process carry out.

---

by: FreeDem @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 02:17:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comment, Not Diary, Part II- Expectations of Governing (4.00 / 1)

Something that has not been discussed, at least publicly, is why anyone would want to be the Democratic nominee for Governor in 2013.

Sure, there's the possibility that the GOP will nominate Cuccinelli and hand the election to the Democrats (I don't think this is necessarily true, but that's one argument I've heard for one people should be running in 2013), but what will you manage to get done as Governor?

If the Republicans win the LG, the State House and State Senate will still be in Republican hands. So a Democrat looking at running for Governor will want to find an equally strong candidate for LG. But they would need to do so without stealing an incumbent Democrat from the State Senate, or at least picking a State Senator who represents a Senate district they could feel confident of holding in a special election.

Finally, even if you manage to win and find a strong LG candidate who also wins, and ensure we keep 20 seats in the State Senate, you'll be faced with a House of Delegates where the Democratic caucus is virtually meaningless. Either nothing gets done, even with two out of three of the levers of power in Richmond, or you're forced to spend at least two, but probably all four years, compromising with the business interests behind the GOP (and a good deal of the Democrats too, frankly). The outcome there will be more like the 2007 transportation fiasco than anything that anything new and bold.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 19:23:56 PM UTC

Excellent point. With the Senate and House (0.00 / 0)

in Republican hands, why would any sane Democrat WANT to be governor of Virginia, even if he or she could get elected in 2013? Given Republicans' complete intransigence, it's almost a guarantee that a Dem governor would get NOTHING done. Why would that excite anyone?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 19:28:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Balance of Power (4.00 / 1)

I can see your point about fighting the GOP agenda however a Democratic governor, unless I am mistaken, will still have veto power over right wing loon driven legislation.

---

by: glennbear @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:54:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True, but that's not moving the ball forward. (0.00 / 0)

Definitely need a masochist for this job.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:59:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Legacy (4.00 / 1)

What sounds more like the legacy a Democratic Governor would want to leave behind? Solving our transportation crisis for a generation, or just spending four years vetoing crazy shit?

Your point is well taken, it's important to have veto power over right-wing legislation. But usually candidates run for office to "change" things, not just spend four years preventing bad things from happening.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:59:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (0.00 / 0)

Well said -- you're on a roll today. :)

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 21:00:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comment, Not Diary, Part III- Digging Out (4.00 / 1)

I know a lot of activists are very, very depressed after the 2011 elections and seeing the GOP snatch control of the State Senate, but we've been down and out before--just a decade ago.

The Republican gerrymander in 2001 cost us one State Senate seat in 2003, but we were able to come back and pick up four seats in 2007, and came pretty close in four more. We finally took Cuccinelli's seat in the special. We had a pretty good track record over ten years in the State Senate races, despite it being a Republican drawn map.

I know there's a widespread sentiment that the Democratic redistricting of the State Senate was too shallow and it narrowed the number of seats we can compete in. I'd say there's a lot of time from now until 2015. There problems in Houck's district and Reynold's district are more about the bench than the districts themselves, we have time to look for and invest in good recruits (whether we will do so is another question). There are two to three other seats worth watching.

I know we have real concerns about other seats, especially when we face retirements or people moving to statewide offices, but the demographic trends in most districts are working to the favor of our incumbents. We also don't know what four more years of demographic changes could mean for other seats that we haven't been seriously contesting.

The road ahead is more difficult in the House of Delegates, but it's hard to do any worse and I think we have good shots at seriously contesting 10 or so in a Gubernatorial year. The same narrative, that we can work to regain seats and look forward to future successes, is true here as well.

Democrats gained three seats in 2003, four seats in 2005, and four seats in 2007, before the setbacks of 2009. I think steady, consistent gains for Democrats are possible, but it means we're not going to see the fruits of our hard work until well into the decade. Which is very important when you consider my second comment on expectations of governing.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 19:52:52 PM UTC

Watkins' district (4.00 / 1)

Dems got 43% and outperformed two targeted districts with a no - name candidate vs Watkins. If we invest and target the district, I daresay we can contest it.

Also, Dick Black is immediately posturing for statewide office, which may make him toxic for his district as the GOP brand sours in Loudoun.

My sense is the possibilities are there in the Senate!  

---

by: truthteller @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 21:37:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comment, Not Diary, Part IV- The Long Term (4.00 / 1)

In my previous comments I pointed out that there's little to no "pay off" for being a Democratic Governor of Virginia elected in 2013. Under the best case scenario, a Democratic LG and 20 State Senators, you're still having to cut deals with the Republican House of Delegates and probably a number of your more moderate State Senators.

In the long term, the Democratic Party will probably continue to slowly pick up seats in the House of Delegates and the State Senate isn't entirely a lost cause in 2015, or 2019. But given how deep we're down in the House, this trend isn't going to be very helpful until 2017 at the earliest. This assumes an average of picking up 6.33 seats in order to get to 51, which is a very aggressive/optimistic/absurd pace. At a more reasonable pace of 4 we're still stuck at 44 after 2017. But a Democrat running for Governor in 2017 could at least see a chance at taking back the House in 2019 and two years of reasonable legislation.

If Virginia didn't have term limits, the temptation of 2013 would be spending four years rebuilding the party, fighting Republicans and presiding over small step compromises that move the state in the right direction. Do well and you could then spend your second term actually building a real legacy.

Instead, we're faced with a scenario where any Democrat elected in 2013 will spend four years of hard work rebuilding the party with no reward. In the best scenario he or she would see a Democratic LG elected in 2013 run for Governor in 2017 and finish the job.

Add all of this up and you can make some interesting hopes and plans for 2013 and beyond . . .

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:13:34 PM UTC

Comment, Not Diary, Part V- LG, AG, and Sources of Power (4.00 / 1)

Maybe I should have gone with a diary after all . . .

With only three statewide elected offices, Virginia doesn't have as many bastions of independent power as other states do. Across the fifty laboratories of democracy there are a number of minor, but important, independently elected executive offices ranging from Auditor, Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner, Agriculture Commissioner, and so on. These offices can serve as incubators for future runs for office (See Perry, Texas).

Virginia, perhaps due to the Byrd Machine wanting fewer independent sources of political power outside of their county courthouse machine and the General Assembly, only has Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General, that's it.

Under Cuccinelli there has been a dramatic increase to the public role of the Attorney General. Some might want to call this an unprecedented politicization of the office, but it's not that different than what Republican Attorney Generals are doing nationwide. Is it unprecedented if anyone else is also doing it?

I also don't know if it's that different than what Eliot Spitzer and other Democrats have done over the years with the Attorney General position in other states. The big difference is Democrats have promoted the position to fight for the people and Cuccinelli and the recent wave of Tea Party republicans are using the office to fight for the powerful.

And in some ways Cuccinelli's obsession with the constitution and overseeing the interpretation of state laws is actually truer to the office than the constant campaign of would be officer holders acting like the job is just being one big cop. See the Richmond Times on this: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/...

In any case, Cuccinelli has leveraged this new powerful role for the AG into a bid to take on two-term LG Bill Bolling for the Republican nomination. Unlike AG, there's not as much room for the LG to expand into a source of independent political power. Most modern Virginia LGs either serve as a soap box for the party out of power (Bolling-Kaine, Beyer-Allen, etc), or as the junior partner of a popular Governor (Bolling-McDonnell, Kaine-Warner, etc). In both cases the power and influence of the individual is less about the powers of the office, but more about the luck of either being one of the few statewide elected officials of a party in the out, or being able to grab onto the coattails of a popular Governor who's willing to let them share the stage in photo-ops.

Under McDonnell, Bolling's elevation to "Chief Jobs Creation Officer" and a host of other "Jobs Czars" position isn't about the office of LG, it's McDonnell trying to use the power of the Governor to build up Bolling's status and name ID. It was the quid pro quo of Bolling stepping aside for McDonnell in 2009.

Now, with the 20-20 tie in the Senate, the office of LG may actually be relevant for the next four years. Bolling is hoping this helps elevate him further in his fight against Cuccinelli. Any candidate for LG in 2013 is hoping the tie continues and allows them to serve as a champion to their party. A Republican LG serving under a Democratic Governor could leverage the office into becoming the voice of the party going into 2017. A Republican LG serving under a Republican Governor is a vital part of ensuring continued control for the party.

The same is largely true of a Democratic LG. A Democratic LG serving under a Republican Governor is all that stands between Virginia and draconian laws against women, immigrants, and voters (assuming they can't push all of that through the next two sessions!). A Democratic LG serving under a Democratic Governor, as I've outlined elsewhere, is well positioned to enjoy the fruits of four years of hard work by the Democratic Governor, if they win in 2017.

But all of this may be temporary for the office of LG. 2015 could shift the balance of power in the State Senate and return the LG to its mostly irrelevant position. The next AG, Democrat or Republican, is unlikely to concede the expanded role that Cuccinelli has built for the office.

Unless Cuccinelli creates some sort of backlash that encourages everyone to come together to limit the role of AG, I think we've permanently opened a Pandora's Box for that office. Long term, the LG will continue its slide into greater irrelevancy. Frankly it's hard to justify an independently elected LG in today's modern era. Mike Signer in 2009 tried to articulate a new role for the LG, but the pathway was not taken. The next LG, Republican or Democrat, may have a window of trying to push for reforms to state government that elevate the profile of the LG, but that's only a possibility.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:30:36 PM UTC

Yeah, you might want to put this into a diary (0.00 / 0)

so it gets more exposure than comments will. Your call.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:49:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Probably Will (0.00 / 0)

Going to change things around, didn't realize I actually have a lot to say until I started typing.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:59:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have to disagree that Cuccinelli's actions are not unprecedented (0.00 / 0)

I can't think of any government act since the McCarthy Era comparable to his efforts to accuse a scientist of criminal fraud and hound this man and his universtiy to the end of time based on lunatic conspiracy theories.  Nothing Eliot Spitzer or any other AG I'm aware of comes close.

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:50:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Check Out (0.00 / 0)

Pam Bondi in Florida. Just one example.

There is a new crop of extremist Tea Partiers across the nation. Cuccinelli was arguably ahead of the curve, but I think the movement had already started before he won in 2009 and his only benefit has been "being first" because our elections were in 2009 and not 2010.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 21:03:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also, as you pointed out, many AGs have used their office (0.00 / 0)

to fight for PROGRESSIVE values, for the environment, for the people not the powerful, etc. What's unusual about Cuccinelli here in Virginia is that he's dramatically changed the usual role of the AG in Virginia, from more of a crime fighter to an advocate for every crazy, right-wingnut cause under the sun (including outright denial of science and hounding of scientists, which as kindler points out, is akin to the McCarthy Era in its heinousness).

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 21:08:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boring Virginia AGs (0.00 / 0)

I'm not a legal scholar, but I think that any previous Virginia AG could have expanded the role of the office like Cuccinelli. He's just very aggressive in using the powers of the office to their fullest extent.

In looking back in history I haven't found a good example of a previous Virginia AG who utilized the office in this way. But it was arguably inevitable in today's modern world.

Both of the GOP candidates for AG, Bell and Obenshain, seem likely to keep going in the Cuccinelli direction. The question for Democrats is if we try to run a campaign in 2013 based on a return to "normalcy" and de-politicization of the office, or to balance the legacy of a conservative populist AG with a liberal populist candidate.

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 21:28:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My point is... (0.00 / 0)

...that literally criminalizing science is not being a "conservative populist" or "politicizing the office".  It's taking us back to the Middle Ages. Unless a future liberal AG starts carting off conservative economists to prison, there is and will be nothing comparable.  Please don't compare apples and Stegosaruses.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 00:00:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Witch Hunt (0.00 / 0)

We all agree that his witch hunt against UVA is politically motivated. It's disrespectful of science and the quest for knowledge. What I disagree with, and you clearly have a differing opinion so I'd like to understand why, is a claim that Cuccinelli's actions exceed the office of Attorney General. I think it is well within his powers to carry out such a witch hunt, even if I'd prefer to see occupants of the office who exercise such power wisely.

---

by: FreeDem @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:19:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Based on which enumerated powers? (0.00 / 0)

Because he's taking a law that was designed to prevent the fradulent use of state funds, and twisting it to justify punitive subpoenas against a climate scientist in a case in which there is absolutely zero evidence of fraud. He is claiming that Professor Mann's research itself is fraudulent, with no grounds other than climate denial conspiracy theories.  That's a grotesque abuse not only of his powers, but of the First Amendment.

And it's outside the traditions of American history, which with rare exceptions like the Alien and Sedition Acts and McCarthy Era, has not involved the state harassing individuals for the exercise of wholly peaceful and unthreatening scholarship.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 01:38:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

American History (0.00 / 0)

You obviously have a mush rosier view of American history if you feel like the exception is the Alien and Sedition Acts and the McCarthy Era. That's a difference of perspective, which is fine. Cuccinelli seems to think he can get away with his actions. So far he has. You might hold out hope that the Virginia Supreme Court rules against him. I'm more cynical. That doesn't make what he's doing right, it just means that arguably any Attorney General could have pushed the envelope as far as he has and we're just lucky no one had until now.

---

by: FreeDem @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 02:22:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You haven't given similar examples of the state legally attacking academics (0.00 / 0)

We're lucky other AGs haven't "pushed the envelope" to the point of blatantly violating the Constitution just as we're lucky, say, that George Washington didn't crown himself king.  But it's more than luck -- it depends on the vigilance of the people raising their voices to denounce and oppose gross abuses of power, not just pooh-poohing them as business as usual.  

Impeachinelli! Now on Twitter.

---

by: kindler @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 03:12:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comment, Not Diary, Part VI- In Conclusion . . . (4.00 / 1)

Yes, I will finally shut up.

For 2013, Democrats need to find a candidate for Governor who's a masochist. Defeating Cuccinelli sounds fun, but once the inauguration parties are over they'll find their legislative agenda blocked by the General Assembly.

The work for the next Democratic Governor will be four years of party rebuilding, not four years of building a legislative legacy. Some compromise with Republicans may be possible, but I think there will be a lot more vetoing of extreme Republican legislation than nice ceremonies celebrating bipartisan achievement.

This means that running a strong bold progressive champion would almost be a waste of a good candidate. A good party loyalist who would be committed to rebuilding the party is an excellent choice, even if they might not be as progressive as we'd hope. What's more important is a record of competence.  

But I think this makes the run for LG even more important than some folks realize. A good progressive LG that is able to win would significantly help any Democratic Governor. It could also be all that stands in the way of two more years of Tea Party Republicans should our Gubernatorial candidate be defeated. And if we begin to make up ground by rebuilding the party, a strong progressive LG set up for running for Governor in 2017 is extremely important.

I'm focusing on a strong progressive for LG, not AG, because of the importance I see for taking back the State Senate through the tie-breaking vote of the LG (now that we're post-lawsuit). But a progressive AG candidate who takes the expanded role Cuccinelli has built for the office and instead turns it around as a office to promote the people would be an exciting development. There's a lot to be done on this front . . .

So, where are the candidates?

---

by: FreeDem @ Sun Dec 18, 2011 at 20:40:03 PM UTC

Whither the VIrginia Dems? (0.00 / 0)

THis is a depressing thread. How did DPVA end up in the dessert like this?(rhetorical question only). We have several politically active former governors, why haven't they taken it on themselves to recruit, nurture and perhaps mentor future leaders? Something needs to be done because the system obviously isn't working to attract the talent that's out there.  

---

by: richmonder @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 03:36:14 AM UTC

So basically (0.00 / 0)

Virginia non-conservatives are screwed when it comes to state governance until probably, what, 2017 or something?

Saslaw, Moran, I can't name a single Virginia Democrat in office right now that's actually worth a damn.

Really, it's people like us that ought to be running for office. Even though we have no experience, at this point, would it really matter?

---

by: hrprogressive @ Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 07:30:03 AM UTC