I think John Warner may be having second thoughts about handing off to Davis because he's beginning to realize just how damaged Davis is.

The two big issues for 2008 will be the war and corruption: Davis is on the wrong side of both of these issues.

The campaign ads that could be made from Davis' performance in Waxman's committee will vaporize any centrist support for Davis, especially if Mark Warner is the Democratic nominee.

has suddenly started making remarks attacking MARK Warner's record (mostly he's sneering at Mark's splendid tax reform that saved our AAA bond rating).

While this constant republican anti-tax refrain is to be expected from a republican seeking state office, and presumably Bolling is going to run for Governor, it is a curious and gratuitous smear rather early in the game.  I wonder if this attack on Mark was meant to help Tom Davis in a possible run for JOHN Warner's Senate seat--- payback for Tom Davis' help in cobbling together the republican transportation bill... certainly Bolling did nothing to coerce the Assembly into producing a transportation bill, and we all know Davis and Ed Gillespie raced down to Richmond and twisted arms, forcing Speaker Howell to produce something, anything, about transportation in order to help save republican Delegates and Senators in the upcoming election by taking away (they hope) transportation as an issue for Democrats.

will help him.  In fact, I think they'll backfire, given how popular Mark Warner is relative to Bill Bolling.  But maybe it plays among Bolling's conservative Republican base, that's all I can conclude.  Plus, I'm sure Bolling really does think that Mark Warner's entire governorship was "built on lies," as he said.  So Mr. Bolling, what is "supply side" and "trickle down" built on?  How about the war in Iraq?  Truth?  I don't THINK so.

Both Bolling and McDonnell are running around the state trying to sound tougher on taxes than the other.  See http://www.newsleade...

Bolling can say things like this now to firm up his base, knowing full well that no one in the general election will remember that he dissed Mark.

but primarily the Mark bashing is being done to gain points with the Republican base.  Bolling and McDonnell are going to be locked in a very bloody primary.  It never dawned on me before, but you're right... unlike his rival AG Bob, Bolling did nothing to "help" in this transportation debate.  Ouch!  He's gotta be hurting from that one. No wonder the lashing out. 

But the thing that I found most disturbing about that BD podcast is LG Bill's talk about 2007 Senate races.  He delights in his belief that an even more conservative GOP majority will prevail.  He specifically cited his excitement for candidates running to replace Sen. Potts and Chichester.  His excitement in seeing Potts and Chichester gone isn't reserved to just riddance of what he perceives as taxing RINOs.  I'd say he's more excited about getting rid of the backstop to all the flipped out bills that his friends with the so-called "Family" Foundation endorse.  I believe there is going to be GOPper primaries in both the 27th and the 28th. It'll be very interesting to see who not only wins/loses those primaries but also what endorsements they each get.  Bolling will be held responsible for the GOP losing the Senate. 

or has thrown in his lot with the far-right extremists.  Maybe it's time for a new nickname for Bolling?  "Wild Bill" Bolling?  Ha.

You're gonna get me in trouble with all the Grumpys and Squeakys out there, aren't ya Lowell?  You're going to come up with a really clever nickname for LG Bill that I won't be able to resist using.  I'm doomed.  Damn you, Lowell!  ;)

;)

Given that the Republican base right now seems to consist of the rich who are also greedy, and the dumb, how about either

Bolling for Dollars
or Bolling for Dullards

[Bowling for Dollars was a 1970s-era TV game show, for you young whippersnappers who might not remember.]

There are lots of possibilities... :)

By the way, for one of the most amazing bowling tricks ever:

http://www.collegehu...

Introducing... Bill Bollweevil!

Senator John Warner tells the media he's against the escalation in Iraq. But when push came to shove last week, he sided with President Bush and voted to keep the war going indefinitely. It is time to make sure the people of Virginia know where John Warner really stands on Iraq.

Sounds like he opposes the escalation, right? But after saying this, when given an opportunity to actually hold the president accountable and start bringing our troops home from Iraq, what did Senator Warner do?

That's right, he voted against accountability and against a deadline to start bringing our troops home.

Goodbye to an age old hipocrit. Time for the old man to leave.

Personnally I am tired of his form letters that say nothing about what I wrote to him about.

Besides Virginia has a Senator who will really take care of Virginia's Military. First name of Jim.

changes his mind about his position on Iraq more times than Hillary.  I'm still waiting for Webb to bitch-slap him around the Senate floor a few times.

He is next-to-useless

And apparently he does not even have a staff that can write quality letters that disagree without sounding "kiss-offish" and generally dumb

At his age I can't see John Warner running in '08 if he's facing a lot of criticism on the Iraq war. His comments like "the situation is drifting sideways" after his trip to Baghdad are not consistent with his position on the war. In a recent letter he sent to me in response to my letter criticizing his vote against Senate debate on Iraq, he states several contradictory points:
With regards to the resolution he supported opposing the surge he says:
"Our resolution (S. Con. Res. 7) differs from the President's plan with respect to the deployment of additional U.S. troops in Baghdad where the violence is largely a consequence of sectartian factions inside the country...."
"Countering sectarian fighting, particularly in Baghdad, is a task best left to the Iraqi military."
Then he writes: "I have worked continually with my colleagues to bring this resolution to a vote...Regrettably, to date the Senate has not been able to obtain the sixty votes necessary to continue debate on this matter, and consequently the resolution was pulled off the Senate floor. I disagree with efforts to restrict debate on the Iraq matter and believe that open debate...is in the best interest of the country..." 
Finally he says "Certainly, more insurgent violence lies ahead as former regime loyalists, terrorists, and others resist progress in Iraq....these insurgents will use any means necessary to prevent the new Iraqi government from successfully exercising the reins of sovereignty." He's obviously having a hard time reconciling his doubts about the war with his image and mindset as a military hawk.
I just received an e-mail from Move-on soliciting LTE's against Warner's waffling. A little heat now may help convince him that he's had enough in the Senate.
Sure hope so. Americans everywhere are fed up with old thinking and want something new!
Go Mark!

At his age I can't see John Warner running in '08 if he's facing a lot of criticism on the Iraq war. His comments like "the situation is drifting sideways" after his trip to Baghdad are not consistent with his position on the war. In a recent letter he sent to me in response to my letter criticizing his vote against Senate debate on Iraq, he states several contradictory points:
With regards to the resolution he supported opposing the surge he says:
"Our resolution (S. Con. Res. 7) differs from the President's plan with respect to the deployment of additional U.S. troops in Baghdad where the violence is largely a consequence of sectartian factions inside the country...."
"Countering sectarian fighting, particularly in Baghdad, is a task best left to the Iraqi military."
Then he writes: "I have worked continually with my colleagues to bring this resolution to a vote...Regrettably, to date the Senate has not been able to obtain the sixty votes necessary to continue debate on this matter, and consequently the resolution was pulled off the Senate floor. I disagree with efforts to restrict debate on the Iraq matter and believe that open debate...is in the best interest of the country..." 
Finally he says "Certainly, more insurgent violence lies ahead as former regime loyalists, terrorists, and others resist progress in Iraq....these insurgents will use any means necessary to prevent the new Iraqi government from successfully exercising the reins of sovereignty." He's obviously having a hard time reconciling his doubts about the war with his image and mindset as a military hawk.
I just received an e-mail from Move-on soliciting LTE's against Warner's waffling. A little heat now may help convince him that he's had enough in the Senate.
Sure hope so. Americans everywhere are fed up with old thinking and want something new!
Go Mark!