Unintended Consequences: Harriet, Jerry, and Tim

My old question was would Harriet Miers make it to a congressional hearing, much less be approved.

This question has been answered. Ms. Miers has withdrawn her nomination using the protection executive confidence argument suggested by Charles Krauthammer last week:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001635.html

My new question? What impact her withdrawal has on the Virginia Gubernatorial election! You see, if history repeats itself President Bush has given Tim Kaine a new issue to use against Jerry Kilgore, and we may see the law of unintended consequences come into play in Virginia.

Beyond questions of national mood, the last time a national issue really impacted a Virginia state election was in 1989 when the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade helped Doug Wilder (D) beat Marshall Coleman (R).

That year the Supreme Court addressed a case that could lead to the overruling of Roe and the matter of abortion rights returned to the states and into the hands-ultimately-of their governors. Pro Choice voters turned out in force for Wilder, and may have provided the margin of victory for him in a much closer than expected election.

Ms. Miers was something of an unknown on the matter of abortion rights, with recent information putting her on both sides during her professional career. Her withdrawal in the face of conservative opposition will increase the chance of the selection of a markedly and avowedly conservative jurist. The prospect of such an appointment and the likelihood that said appointee will be an opponent of the Roe decision will allow Kaine to raise the possibility of Roe being overturned and the decision for abortion rights being thrust into the hands of state governors.

Kaine has already begun beating the Abortion drum as he tries to get traction in the closing days of the campaign, as seen by his speech in Arlington on 10.26.05:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102602504.html

Withdrawing the Miers nomination almost two weeks prior to the election may give Kaine enough time to turn the matter of abortion rights into a campaign issue with legs.

And if it does, then the effects of the law of unintended consequences will dominate the closing days of this election.

UPDATE: Seems my posting above read the mind of the folks at the DailyKos, who are fired up on exactly the grounds laid out above:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/27/155118/04

I don't read minds, but even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then!

Party, Principle, and the Club for Growth

Earlier this month the Virginia Club for Growth (VCFG) issued a press release criticizing Virginia GOP gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore for not being hard line enough against tax increases. The Democratic nominee Tim Kaine's campaign took that criticism and crafted a mailing to Virginia Republicans publicizing the criticism. To the undiscerning eye it looks like a mailing by the VCFG against Kilgore. It is amusing, as while the VCFG has its problems with Kilgore, those differences pale in comparison to its differences with Kaine.

You can see the flyer here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/kai0546_club4growth_1017.pdf

This mailing has kicked up a variety of discussions, ranging from how ethical it was to send it to whether it was an appropriate time for the VCFG to be less than 100% supportive of Kilgore. But the most interesting discussion I have seen is at the Bacon's Rebellion blog, where a discussion has arisen about the place of ideological purity and party loyalty and how they fit together. A fairly erudite discussion of the matter can be found at:

http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com/2005/10/oh-phil-phil-hows-your-day-going.html

The conversation fascinates me as both the Democrats and the Republicans need a big tent approach to win election, regardless of election level. Yet both parties have large factions that adopt fairly strict ideological litmus tests that determine their support for a candidate. Often they are not in complete agreement on issues. When that happens, how do you handle the difference between what you want and what you get in an elected official? Is a candidate acceptable if he agrees with you on all the issues? Most certainly. But what if it is 90% or 80%? It is a slippery slope, and the light shed on that slope in the discussion link above is quite enlightening.

John Goolrick has passed, and I don't feel so good Myself

John Goolrick, long time Virginia political reporter and congressional aide, passed this week at the age of 70. Strange to say, even though I was a person he probably didn't remember, I feel today as if a piece of what is good and unique about the commonwealth I grew up in has passed and may never come back.

It is more than the fact that John Goolrick was legendary in the realm of Virginia political writing. John was a throwback to the days when reporters reported facts, not vitriol; a time when legislators could disagree without being disagreeable, and not being of a particular ideological persuasion was not considered a character defect.

Others knew John better than I. For a feel for those who regularly dealt with him, see:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10262005/140250
and
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10262005/139971

And for an example of John's writing, see:
http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues05/02-14/Goolrick.html

I met John in 1983. I was working for John Chichester as a campaign manager, and did not know what in the world I was doing. We parted ways by Labor Day, and John managed to eke out 83% of the vote over George Dowd. I would like to think it was the sterling foundation I laid down that made his landslide possible ;-)

John Goolrick recognized in me a political junkie who was more analyist than warrior. He was always kind to me when we chatted, and more than once he made off hand comments about things I might consider doing. Amazingly all his ideas worked. Later I discovered that he was one of the folks who urged his childhood friend to run for the State Senate, and helped organize his campaign even as Goolrick continued to write political stories for the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star.

I haven't seen John in years, yet I mourn his passing. I think it is because I miss the idea of John Goolrick, and perhaps it is because although I knew him so little I felt I knew him so well.

John Goolrick knew his own head and his own heart. You could call him a fool and he wouldn't take permanent offense, and expected the same of others. He believed in loyalty: to individuals, to ideas, to ideals, and to place-like his beloved Fredericksburg. He knew how to tell and take a joke, and come back for more. He saw the the little things in life as a source of joy and not a source of mortal contention.

There used to be a lot of folks in public life like John Goolrick, and that number is dwindling behind a reliance on polls, oppo research, and clever advertisements. He was a joyous, bold, audacious yawp of a man if ever there was one, and his passing is our loss. I wish there were more like him around...Lord, we could sure use them.

The Howling Winds around Harriet Miers, and the two small problems with her nomination

As the winds howl around Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, I have come to think there are two problems with President Bush's choice for the high bench.

There has been a lot of talk recently about how Harriet Miers will be a good Supreme Court justice because she has common sense. Well, common sense is fine...but as we don't all share the same idea of common sense, and therein is the problem. Common sense without a judicial philosophy encompassing the role of the constitution and the courts makes for an unstable foundation to assess the constitutionality of law.

Lewis Powell made a marvelous record on the Supremes with common sense as a lynchpin. However, Justice Powell also brought a judicial philosophy to the position that was the overarching basis of his decisions.

We don't know what if any judicial philosophy Ms. Miers has. It is true that there have been great and near great justices who had no federal judicial experience. The names Black, Frankfurter, Stone, Warren, Fortas, and Powell are some who come to mind. still, they all had some position that could or should have provided an idea of what their view toward constitutional law and the roll of the Supreme court-Warren being one whose experience did not accurately capture his philosophy.

Ms. Miers does not have or readily offer a judicial philosophy. One can be a competent or even great attorney without having a judicial philosophy. One cannot be a competent or even great Supreme Court justice without having one.

That's my first problem with the Miers pick.

Without an idea of she believes-strict constructionist or no, judicial activist or no, respector of stare decisis or no-she is damaged goods going into the confirmation process, and it will be a long, hard slog to get her across.

And therein is my second problem with the Miers pick...

If the president is going to have to do this much work to get his pick across, why not put that effort into someone with a proven conservative record whose candidacy-successful or not-will rally his base in preparation for the 2006 elections?

Please Get This Over With

I live in Virginia, where we have elections every year..and this year is making me somewhat nauseous...

In the local House of Delegates race, the Republican (Michael Golden) is pummeling my mailbox with mailings making claims I have to pay to substantiate. The Democrat (David Marsden) is invisible, and the pollsters are driving us batty.

I am overwhelmed with mail from Golden, yet each mailing follows the same process: Make a claim against Marsden, then cite the source in a footnote. Yet when I tried to check sources, the sources are (a) PAC questionnaires unavailable to the public, or (b) archived newspaper stories you have to pay to see, or (c) Marsden campaign flyers I have not seen.

Then there is the phone message left by some claiming to be Jennie Golden (the GOP wife) , who went on to say that DM was claiming that MG was in favor of "killing women" and "sending kids to school with guns", and promising fuller explanation in a future mailing.

I emailed the Golden campaign and asked them if they could provide copies of their sources to me, as I did not think a voter should have to pay to see sources for campaign charges. The campaign manager emailed back that he would, and has not as of 10.21.05 (even after a follow up by moi).

I guess I am just an old fogy who thinks that when a candidate makes a claim, he should be providing the source of that claim.

His practice reminds me of a line from "The Shad Treatment", where a candidate was faced by an opposition campaign that went about "blithely giving the lie to things [Shadwell] never said with the hebephrenic glee of an axe murderer"

Given all this direct mail, it should surprise no one that Golden has spent 58% of his funds on direct mail:
http://vpap.org/cands/cand_index.cfm?ToKey=COM00924


On the other hand, I cannot make such a claim about Dave Marsden's campaign, because we have not gotten diddley-squat from Dave. We have received multiple visits from folks primarily wanting us to volunteer for the campaign, but nothing related to issues.

Naturally, it comes as no surprise that Marden has spent a huge amount of his funds on staff, but a much smaller percentage on mailings:

http://vpap.org/cands/cand_index.cfm?ToKey=COM01058

This is nothing next to the repeated calls and hang-ups we are getting from the number 703.000.000. We got six calls from this number yesterday, and each time they hung up. The 7th time someone actually stayed on the line, we found it was a pollster.

So, however we end up voting, and likely our family will split our vote one way or the other, we are fed up with this election and are quite eager for Election Day to come so it will be over.

There. Glad I got that out my system.

The Lincoln Four Step-or how simple it used to be

As we wind toward election day in Virginia, and we are awash in television ads and postal flyers, I am reminded of the basic simplicity of the Lincoln Fourt Step.

What is the Lincoln Four Step?

When Abraham Lincoln ran for congress as the Whig party nominee, he sent a letter to a supporter offering the view that there were four things they needed to do to win the upcoming election:

1. Get a list of all registered voters
2. Identify all favorables
3. Persuaded the undecideds
4. Get their voters to the polls on election day

This process has been called by some the Lincoln Four Step. It represents the very basic aspects of the electoral process that have been forgotten by many...including many of this year's candidates in Virginia.