Arsenic and old lace. The 2013 Virginia’s governor’s race is pretty well set – give or take a possible independent run by Bill Bolling. The Republicans have continued their policy of demographic suicide by putting forth current Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. A right winger consumed by conservative social issues, Ken Cuccinelli makes Mitt Romney look like a lefty. Predictably, the far right wing of the Republican Party sees the candidacy of Ken Cuccinelli as pure genius. Moderate Republicans just shake their heads in dismay. The Democrats are sending Terry McAuliffe back to the plate for another at bat. Surprisingly, the Democratic faithful seem to be caught between distaste and ambivalence regarding their candidate. Lefty blog Blue Virginia represents the ambivalence side of the equation by damning with faint praise. Waldo Jaquith is far more frustrated (although he has some choice words for Cuccinelli as well). Given the attitude of Democrats toward their own candidate, I have to wonder – what’s wrong with Terry McAuliffe?
He’s never held elected office. While it’s certainly ambitious to run for governor as your first elected office, it’s hardly unique. Ronald Reagan and Mark Warner both went directly from party functionary to governor.
McAuliffe is a carpetbagger / “office shopper.” The carpetbagger claim is simply absurd. McAuliffe grew up in Syracuse and moved to Washington to attend college at Catholic University. Mark Warner also came to Virginia to attend college in D.C. George Allen and Tim Kaine arrived on the scene later in life than McAuliffe. The claim that McAuliffe has been “shopping for a governorship” is equally absurd. That allegation seems to stem from a very confusing article in the Huffington Post. Somebody asked McAuliffe about a possible run in Florida. The staffer who responded said McAuliffe was flattered to be asked but would not run. The claim in New York is no more than his work to help Hillary Clinton with her campaign. Much ado about nothing.
His business credentials are overblown. Let’s see. He founded a bank, bought a struggling construction company and turned it around before selling it and he’s the chairman of an electric car company. Other than Mark Warner McAuliffe has better business credentials than any Virginia governor in recent memory.
Global Crossing. McAuliffe was an angel investor in the company that became Global Crossing. His $100,000 investment was ultimately sold for $18M after Global Crossing went public (and before it went bankrupt). So what? He never worked for Global Crossing and never was a member of its board. McAuliffe sold his shares long before there were any financial problems. The SEC investigated Global Crossing and found that no wrongdoing occurred. I guess McAuliffe’s “sin” was to be smart enough to sell his shares before the dot com bubble burst.
He built his factory in Mississippi, not Virginia. McAuliffe is Chairman of Greentech – an electric car company that recently built a factory in Mississippi. Again, so what? Mississippi made Greentech a deal. Given the other investors associated with Greentech, I assume McAuliffe doesn’t own Greentech or a majority of Greentech. As a director he has a fiduciary responsibility to all shareholders. If he would have put the factory in Virginia to further his political career he could have been credibly accused of a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
Rippert’s Readout. There is nothing inherently wrong with Terry McAuliffe. He’s a Washington insider but not a Richmond insider. I guess the Richmond insiders think that only those of their ilk should be allowed to run for statewide office.
– D.J. Rippert
the only thing wrong with McAuliffe is he would probably lose 3-1 in RoVa even against the Cooch!
I know you like him but you’re betting on a lame horse here.
But I actually have a request of you and Bacon on a similar issue.
Two states current allocate electoral votes and I hear rumblings from the GOP that they’d like to get all 50 states to allocate by – say popular vote per Congressional District or similar method.
If they do that – the advantage of the Dems in states with significant urban blue geography would evaporate and the Dems could well become a permanent national minority because of the current way that votes allocate within the states.
What do you and Bacon have to say about this?
LarryG:
Obama lost the vast majority of Virginia jurisdictions outside of NoVa too. In fact, he lost most of the heartland in the country (RoUSA?). Even SW Virginia’s own Creigh Deeds took a beating outside of Bath County. No Democrat is going to win Southwest Virginia or the Southside. Of all the Democrats that considered running I think Chap Petersen would have done the best in “RoVa”.
As for the method by which electoral votes are allocated – I believe 48 states have winner take all approached and 2 states have proportional approaches. Virginia is winner take all although there is proposed legislation to make Virginia proportional. Here is a blog regarding the proposed Virginia law:
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2012/12/07/bill-would-allocate-virginia-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district/
As written, Carrico’s bill is a non-starter. Why would you allocate the “at large electoral college votes” (presumably intended to mimic the US Senate seats) by jurisdiction? US Senators are not elected by jurisdiction nor do the two proportional states (Maine and Nebraska) work that way. An alternate bill, proposed by Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax) is more reasonable.
So, we have two similar bills, one sponsored by a Republican and one sponsored by a Democrat. In Virginia at least, this does not seem to be a purely Republican initiative.
As for whether this is a good idea … probably not. Or, I should write, not a good idea with changes to the US Constitution. The “winner take all” strategy tends to limit the number of political parties. In the US, the same two parties have dominated since 1860. The problem comes with the process of selecting a president when no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes. If no candidate receives at least 270 electoral college votes then the president is selected by a vote of the US House of Representatives and the Vice President is selected by a vote of the US Senate.
Do we really want this?
Proportional electoral college voting would encourage multiple parties and, perhaps, even regional candidates. A man like Rick Perry might run on his own party, for example and get quite a few votes in Texas and surrounding states. This could lead to a situation when Obama wins the most electoral votes despite being under the “magic” 270 number. The Republican House of Representatives could very conceivably vote in Romney.
Proportional electoral college rules would be fine if the US Constitution were changed to allow the candidate receiving the most votes to be directly elected. Until that happens, proportional rules give Congress more power. And, if there’s one thing Americans seem to agree upon it’s that Congress is corrupt and should have less power rather than more power.
The Rs and Ds are going to stake out positions that benefit them electorally. Both parties will adopt the principles that will advantage them. If the Rs want to undermine the blue geographical advantage, the Ds want to preserve it. It’s all about power.
McAuliffe is a two-bit liar. He would be a big proponent of crony capitalism, dispensing other people’s money for the benefit of a few. http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/may/18/terry-mcauliffe/terry-mcauliffe-says-virginia-has-no-repayment-pla/
And Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli willfully lied about a law in Washington, DC and then tried to talk his way out of the lie instead of admitting that he was wrong.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jan/23/ken-cuccinelli/cuccinelli-says-dc-council-has-banned-lethal-trapp/
He also wrongly claimed that colleges and universities in the Commonwealth of Virginia lacked the authority to extend benefits to partners of gay employees.
So, both candidates have been known to tell a lie or two. We don’t have Abe Lincoln on the ballot next November. We have Cuccinelli and McAuliffe.
As for the crony capitalism claim – why would you make such a statement? Certainly the issue with McAuliffe’s statement regarding the transportation bonds has nothing to do with crony capitalism.
TMT – I rate your comment “half true”. Yes, McAuliffe was wrong about the transportation bonds. And yes, he should have admitted his error. However, the crony capitalism claim is unsubstantiated by anything you have written.
McAuliffe is seeking more gas tax revenues to benefit land speculators and without the reforms that would ensure the added revenue benefits taxpayers. I’ve talked with the man. He’s not going to stand up to the developers. Would he apply Fairfax County’s plan for Tysons that requires landowners to pay 59.5% of the costs of new and expanded roads and non-rail transit statewide? Of course not.
I’ve got a lot of issues with Cuccinelli, but he’s not a crony capitalist.
For years you berated the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors for being in the developers’ pockets. Now you hold out Fairfax’s plan for Tysons as a model for how things should be done. Beyond that, I am not sure how a governor would “stand up” to developers at the county level. Was the Fairfax plan for Tysons the result of something Bob McDonnell did? Or was it a decision made by the county?
Bob McDonnell has been borrowing money to beat the band. Why? so he can use the money for transportation projects designed to enhance economic development. Translation – he’s doing exactly what you accuse McAuliffe of doing – using state money to “pave the way” for more development. Does McDonnell have a plan to pay for the Charlottesville Bypass by raising tax rates on adjacent property?
You seem to have a developing case of McAuliffe Derangement Syndrome.
Fairfax County made a huge change in policy when it adopted the Comp Plan for Tysons in June 2010. It effectively tied future growth to additional and adequate public facilities. That has never happened before. The Plan is not perfect and the expansion of the DTR is problematic at best. It may well become a barrier to all of the planned growth.
Second, Fairfax County adopted a transportation financing plan that forces landowners to pay 59.5% of the costs for needed road and non-rail transit improvements. It also limited the exposure of county taxpayers to less than 25% – 17.7% to be exact. This is a far cry from the staff’s original funding proposal that would have put 58% of the burden on taxpayers with no limit on the exposure to county taxpayers. In fact, a couple of the staff’s draft strawman on funding made county taxpayers funders of last resort. This result occurred largely because of the advocacy of the McLean Citizens Association and former president Rob Jackson. They beat and changed the system. The estimated savings to taxpayers over 40 years is $403 million. Under these circumstances, I am not troubled by supporting the Plan for Tysons.
The State’s road-funding plan. It’s the same plan as Tim Kaine’s except the bonding has been accelerated. There is road-building for economic development. I’ve been fighting that by advocating selection for funding of projects should be based on increased safety and decreased traffic congestion, as proposed by Delegate LeMunyon and Senator Marsden. I have also been trashing the Outer Beltway and worked with my friends at the MCA & the Fairfax Federation to formally oppose funding for the Outer Beltway because it’s a plain and simple subsidy to real estate development. I would support mandatory use of the 59.5% funding formula stateswide and have taken on both Republicans and Democrats on the issue.
I don’t like Cuccinelli on all of the social issues, but he’s not a crony capitalist. He opposed funding of the Silver Line by DTR drivers through MWAA. McAuliffe, while I like him on economic growth issues, strikes me as a Til Hazel-friendly guy. He’s a wheeler-dealer like Bill Clinton. Let McAuliffe endorse 59.5% and I might well change my mind.
I had not considered the 3rd party aspects of proportional voting but I see a problem right now with our two-party system and I’d support something to put a good dent or nick or two into it so that someone like Cantor has to be worried about the left and the right .
I think our current two party system is a toxic monopoly that needs to be broken up.
I agree with you on the two party system flaws. However, a process that results in the House of Representatives voting in presidents would be a huge problem in my mind.
The trick is to modify the 12th amendment. The winner of the presidency should be the candidate receiving the most votes, whether or not it’s a majority. However, even this can be a challenge. Go back to 1992. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote but no electoral college votes. Had electoral votes been proportional, the US House of representatives would have voted, with one vote per state, to determine the next president.
Bill Clinton finished first in the popular vote. So, under a new approach he might be declared president. However, I can imagine people saying that they would have voted for Bush if there had been no Perot. Therefore, electing Clinton would be a disservice. These people would want a run off election between the two top candidates. In my opinion, that would have made George HW Bush president.
Any proposal you have for changing the 12th amendment should be considered in light of the 1992 election.
McAuliffe firm never applied for Va. incentives http://www.wtop.com/120/3158558/McAuliffe-firm-never-applied-for-Va-incentives
“‘That’s their choice. Other states _ I think Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi _ have a very aggressive (effort) to bring manufacturing in. Obviously, Virginia was my first choice,’ he [McAuliffe] said after a tour of a Richmond-area office building.”
“More than 600 pages of emails and other correspondence The Associated Press obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show the state was dubious of the project from its beginning in 2009. But they also show the company exacerbated VEDP’s misgivings by failing to satisfy questions about its financing and viability from senior officials under two governors _ Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Bob McDonnell.”
Yet another lie from McAuliffe
TMT:
You live in a fantasy land where the Chairman (and minority investor) has dictatorial power over a company. Virginia may well have been McAuliffe’s first choice. That doesn’t make it Greentech’s first choice.
Nissan has a 3.5 million square foot plant in Canton, MS. Nissan can produce up to 400,000 vehicles per year at that plant.
Toyota builds cars in Blue Springs. MS.
Meanwhile, Ford closed its Norfolk Assembly plant in 2007.
As far as I know, only Volvo builds vehicles in Virginia (although there are parts manufacturers).
So, Virginia was dubious of the Greentech project and burned 600 pages of e-mails complaining about the project. I’d guess Mississippi was accommodating.
Small companies don’t have time for Richmond based BS. While the clowns in Richmond batted e-mails back and forth to one another Mississippi got the factory.
Terry McAuliffe is still a first-class liar.