Same moron she was when she first ran for office.

Here are the State Senators who voted for this mess in the first place:

YEAS--Bell, Blevins, Colgan, Deeds, Devolites Davis, Edwards, Herring, Houck, Howell, Lambert, Marsh, McDougle, Miller, Norment, O'Brien, Potts, Puckett, Puller, Quayle, Rerras, Reynolds, Ruff, Stolle, Stosch, Ticer, Wagner, Wampler, Whipple, Williams--29.

I see the name of quite a few Dem's in there as well as my very own beloved Mary (Matha Elephant) Whipple.

Though Mary Elephant hasn't sent out a campaign mailer to us Arlington peons, I suspect she claims this as a "victory" as well.

However, in her latest mailing to her constituents, Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis seems to have upset the beehive.  Not only does she claim HB 3202 as a triumph, she outright lies to rope in the Dem's.  Comments from a source that received the mailing:

"In the first case, she states:  "We all recognize that the
Constitution grants the right to law-abiding citizens to own firearms for safety and hunting."  So, as our elected representative, she demonstrates her tremendous LACK of understanding of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Not only does the Constitution/Bill of Rights NOT grant any rights, but the 2nd Amendment isn't about safety and
hunting.  I know--you already know that part...  ;-)

In the second case she is talking about the NICS checks, specifically for gun shows when she states:  "In Virginia, these background checks are not required at gun shows."  Here she lies, blatantly, to try to stir the "outrage" that NICS checks are not done at gun shows, when, of course, she knows is a lie--that they are done by every FFL
holder/dealer whether at a gun show or not.  She knows, of course, that saying the truth--that only private sales do not require these background checks--would not stir up the rage she is looking for.  I know--you already know that part, too.  ;-)"

So she is a liar, not that bright and not making anyone happy.  Outta be easy to beat.

Question:  How many points does one have to have before the highest fine is assigned to driving behaviors?  I had heard 8 points.  I don't know the type nor the number of infractions that would result in 8 points as I try not to speed, run red lights, pass school buses or drive drunk.

It seems that if I have 8 points why should I  receive any mercy?  Shouldn't I have to pay the top fine?

You can get 8 points with 2 speeding tickets (one 20+ (6 points) and one speeding 1-9).

It concerns me that anyone would think that kind of conduct merits "the top fine."  We don't live in Saudi Arabia. 

Two tickets over a year period do not mean you're a chronic/habitual offender who merits $3000 fines/fees. 

I think this will only be the beginning of many Republicans to do this in the face of the fallout on the abuser fees.  Funny thin is outside the blogosphere I have not spoken with one person that opposes the fees, mind you I live in a predominately Republican area but nontheless I think thats interesting. Republicans are getting hammered for re-stating for in fact reforming positions on this, must be heeding the political examples of those running President who seem to get a pass when they undertake just political folly, but the Davis may be entering political quick-sand this Fall regarding such flops.
I do though not subscribe to the view that she "has" to be conservative or liberal, I often find myself being both but on varying issues, but if she is portraying herself as the "conservative" choice than thats indeed an issue. People want critical thinkers on these issues and sometimes that may not jive with the so-called platforms of conservativism or liberalism.

The non-bloggers you're talking to are not against the fees?  Do you have any feedback on why not? 

I ask because I've experienced just the opposite - from Democrats, Republicans, and people who don't give crap about politics.  I've heard a few say they were for the fees based on the "tougher rules/penalties for bad drivers" reasoning, but when I mentioned all the issues regarding fees they'd change their tune (a bit) and end up disagreeing with at least some aspect of the fees.

Something tells me they're not all bloggers. :)

PS  Maybe there are 6,491 people in Virginia who frequent the blogs, which would leave 116,000 non-bloggers against the abuser fees.

Of the first three viewers who decided to call, The first was a professional courier from Faifax and the third was a cab driver from Falls Church....(here is the show URL http://video.google....)
  they were both IN FAVOR of the fees except that they felt the part about non-Virginians getting off was unfair. They felt that it should help make their jobs safer by making people drive better.... the caller in between them seemed to have problems with speeding tickets, so he had a different opinion. But it was interesting that the first two professional drivers were in favor.

Lowell again I prefaced with I reside in a dominated Republican district. That said the issue has been trivilized to politics. I called six friends last night (5 Dems 1 Independent) and 2 were for the fees and 4 were against. The two who support it (both Dems) gave these reasons for supporting the fees:

1. Its about abuse. The courts treat second and third time offenders differently in sentancing or fines. Why shouln't we legislate it the same way.
2. Its like the involuntary tax called the lottery...you don't want to pay don't play (thats interesting)
3. Its a band-aid for sure, but its one that will not effect me or my family or raise my taxes and at the same time could improve our roads.

For what its worth those who were against it have two positions on the issue:

1. It the Republican denial that we do not have to raise revenues through taxes to fix our issues and thier refusal is simply because of the elections this Fall.
2. They are ticked off at Kaine for his role in this.

My independent friend and I propose they raise the Inspection fee to $20, a $4 dollar increase over todays rate and take that revenue (the increase from the $4) and mark it solely for transportation. I wonder how people would respond to that if presented to them. Would Republicans see that as a tax? It application is equal and fair in my view.

This issue is not going away. People are driving less which is driving down the revenues we are taking in from the gas taxes. The budgets are based on a rise in revenues from that tax and its flat in 2007. We can't have it both ways. We can't be funding measures based on a economics we are undermining by talking up the finer points of global warming-hybrids, hyrdrogen cars, electric cars- and expect things to get better when we do not fix the underlying principles applied to the very question of sustainable revenues.

Since he got her elected by raising her money, managing her campaign, and appearing in her videos, oh and got her that crooked day job, I believe she is incapable of accomplishing anything on her own. She certainly hasn't proved she can.

Andrea you say about Davis....."Since he got her elected by raising her money, managing her campaign, and appearing in her videos, oh and got her that crooked day job, I believe she is incapable of accomplishing anything on her own. She certainly hasn't proved she can." 

Gosh, Andrea are you saying that Davis is guilty of copying from Connolly's rule book.......use developers to get elected, get developers to contribute to the campaign pots at 10K whacks, and what about that day job." 

n/t

...here's where the idea for the Jeannemarie "Say Anything" image comes from:

Maybe that's a younger Tom Davis and Jeannearie Devolites in the background, saying anything? :)