This is hilarious:
Sen. Jeannemarie Devolites Davis appeared on the Tom deSabla radio show this week, but it's taken us a couple days to understand exactly what she was saying. We're still not entirely clear.It seems the main purpose of her visit was to reiterate her sudden opposition to abuser fees - in fact, her very first claim was that she voted against abuser fees (audio files in WMA format). She went on to explain that they were just part of the overall transportation plan. It was the House's fault. The conference committee failed to fix it.
Later in the interview, she defended and clarified the abuser fees. She blamed the media for misinforming the public. She suggested that deSabla should use his cruise control to avoid reckless driving. And she sparred with a caller about whether or not she supported a previous abuser fee measure.
But Jeannemarie was at the press conference when the original House version of the transportation bill - with abuser fees - was introduced in January. See?
It goes on, including the fact that Devolites Davis "was on the conference committee she accuses of failing to fix the bill."
Just think, in a few months we won't have Devolites Davis around to keep us entertained with her...uh, creativity. What WILL we do? :)
"But Jeannemarie was at the press conference when the original House version of the transportation bill - with abuser fees - was introduced in January. See?"
So there were, what, over 100 provisions in the bill. If I recall (correct me if I'm wrong), RK was among those calling on both houses to compromise. They did. The result was not perfect - there are about 8 provisions I personally hate.
But in a bill with something like 100 provisions, we're going to focus on one of them - 1 percent! - and pretend like it's all JMDD's fault and o we so need Chap to save us from her whims! C'mon, is that really the best we can do?
Meanwhile, we ignore that this blog's namesake has specifically endorsed not just the whole bill but the Abuser Fees in particular - something that JMMD has not done.
Personally, I'm fine with the abuse fees because they put the costs on the very small percentage of worst drivers who cause the most damage. I'm also fine with any effort to extend the fines/fees to out of state drivers.
But the larger crux of it is, this is a really lame attempt to place "blame" on JMDD's doorstep, esp. considering the Governor's explicit positions and actions on the issue.
If the fact the JMDD voted for what is, overall, a decent compromise on fully necessary transportation funding measure even though she, like Tim Kaine and everyone else, wasn't completely happy with 100% of it, is the best reason to vote for Chap, then Chap doesn't merit my vote.
Find a real reason.
I could go on and on, but basically Chap is the ideal candidate for his district. JMDD...not so much.
I beg to differ. The destruction of huge swaths of trees and the preservation of open space was a MAJOR aspect of the MetroWest controversy. Chap was the delegate for that property at the time. He chose to duck the issue saying it was strictly a "local matter" - ignoring that traffic, environmental and educational impacts are all state problems. In contrast, his opponent was Senator for the property, and she took a big risk and a lot of hits from powerful interests to stand up for residents by confronting the issue. And that's not a partisan thing, Steve Shannon came out for more green space and compromise too, just like JMDD. Chap stuck his head in the sand.
"*He believes in "smart growth" solutions to development and transportation issues."
So does JMDD - but she stands up for REAL smart growth, not the Connolly version that Chap takes a pass on.
"Like Jim Webb, he believes that the health of a society is measured at its base, not at its apex."
And that differs from his opponent, how? And perhaps more to the point, how does a fluffy statement like this illustrate how a candidate will vote?
*He believes we should ditch the fatally flawed - and misleadingly named - "No Child Left Behind" law.
That's a federal, not a state, law. He's not running for a federal office.
"*He's a strong advocate for tough penalties against perpetrators of domestic violence and stalking."
Oh, silly me - I forgot all about Jeannmarie's strong support for domestic violence and her huge fan base in the stalking community! [End sarcasm.] I mean, really, this has gone from lame to laughable.
"*He strongly supports a tunnel in Tysons Corner. He also supports COMPETITIVE BIDDING, not a no-bid sweetheart deal to Bechtel."
Again, how is this different from his opponent?
"*He strongly opposes the "abuser fees," in contrast to JMDD, who's all over the place on that issue."
Does he oppose them SO strongly that he would have worked to sink the ENTIRE transportation package that nearly everyone agrees was necessary and with a certain number of flaws? This is what bothers me - after calling for compromise, which is achieved after much effort, RK and Chap then engage what strikes me as empy partisan grandstanding, and it's a lowering of standards that I find disappointing.
"*He's a man of integrity, with no hint of corruption as in the case of you-know-who and her husband."
Pfft. They've been under a microscope for years, and the facts led to a clean slate that basically said, "You're not doing anything wrong, so don't start doing anything wrong."
And if we're going to go there and try tarring by association, what about the "hints" of what happened to all of Chap's campaign money before? You can argue that Chap did nothing wrong - but the same goes for the ones you're trying to tar.
"*He's a great guy - smart, personable, approachable, willing to listen."
Change the sex, and you've described his opponent.
"I could go on and on, but basically Chap is the ideal candidate for his district. JMDD...not so much."
Fun debate, but a swing and a miss, Lowell. Now, if you argue that the state Senate should be run by Democrats for reasons X, Y, or Z, I'd be more likely to see the point. But on a side-by-side comparison of Chap and JMDD, the case is not compelling.
However, for this bill, no reasonable compromise with the flat-earth, no-tax Republicans would have ever happened. Hell, you even have uber anti-tax Republicans fighting with the other anti-tax Republicans over whether or not the fees are taxes. There was no way the Democrats, who were for all intents and purposes excluded from helping craft the bill, could have proposed anything reasonable that would have been accepted. ** HINT: this is your cue to go off on the Governor. See more on this below.
We (many at RK) were in the "scrap it and do it right" camp instead of the "crappy compromise on crap to begin with" camp. I can't speak for Chap, but I can say that we knew that this garbage could never be saved with the Republicans in House interfering with reasonable and responsible progress.
As for Kaine, our disagreement with him and his support of the excessive fees is well documented. Furthermore, we are generally not fans of the entire transportation bill (also well documented) and were not too happy that he took a very soft compromise route. We would have much preferred a tough Gov Warner approach. Go back and read.
And to pick up one of your points, the "it doesn't apply here" point regarding NCLB, Governor Kaine isn't running for anything this year. So feel free to take the fight to Kaine - we'll be dealing with real elections.