Category Archives: Electoral process

Good Luck With McAuliffe’s Ethics Panel

Image: Verdict Reached In Corruption Trial Of Former Virginia Governor McDonnell And His WifeBy Peter Galuszka

Despite the obvious need, Virginia still has done very little to address its monumental problems with ethics reform. The latest endeavor was announced yesterday by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, but it seems too much like just another panel.

And panel it is. McAuliffe has created the 10-member Commission to Ensure Integrity and Public Confidence in State Government. The good news is that it is bipartisan and seems filled with reasonable people, including Christopher Howard, president of Hampden-Sydney College and Sharon Bulova, chairwoman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

Leading it will be for Lt .Gov. Bill Bolling, a Republican who has shown good sense in recent years and got screwed over by party hardliners who maneuvered to get former Atty. Gen. Kenneth Cuccinelli, a wild man, to run and lose in the 2013 governor’s race. His Democratic counterpart will be Rick Boucher, a former legislator from southwest Virginia.

The plan is to present a package of reforms that will deal with gift-giving and donations to politicians, and redistricting, or possibly redesigning some districts away from the madness that some, and mostly Republican legislators have created.

The impetus, naturally, is the first-ever conviction of a governor for corruption. Three weeks ago, a federal jury gave a resounding “guilty” on felony charges against Robert F. McDonnell and his wife Maureen. The U.S. Justice Department stepped in because Virginia’s state ethics laws were so ridiculously lax no one could ever have made the case. There had been lots of “gee, I don’t see a smoking gun” jabber on this blog and elsewhere, but, hey, why not poll the jury?

Just as the McDonnells were being indicted last January, the 2014 General Assembly considered ethics reform but did squat. It made accepting more than $250 in gifts verboten and expanded disclosure requirements to immediate family but the Republican-led led legislature left in a pile of loopholes. “Intangible” gifts, such as African safaris or trips to the Masters golf tournament are A-OK.

What’s needed is a real ethics commission with subpoena power. McAuliffe’s action was quickly derided by such leading lights of ethics reform as House Speaker Bill Howell and Senate Majority Leader Thomas K. Norment. These two Ayatollahs of the Status Quo claimed that McAuliffe was a “latecomer” to an issue that they obviously have done nothing to improve despite their many years in office.

GOP Party Boss Pat Mullins took an irrelevant swipe at McAuliffe’s perceived ethics problems long before he was even governor.

Redistricting is just as important as ethics and I’m glad it is being addressed. Many Virginia districts have been gerrymandered to keep a particular party in office in ways that  protect the status quo and prevent change. Of 100 House of Delegates races in 2013, “only 12 to 14 were competitive,” notes Leigh Middleditch Jr., a Charlottesville lawyer and a founder of the Sorenson Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia, told me earlier this year.

Stephen Farnsworth, a political analyst at the University of Mary Washington, has studied gerrymandering for years and believes it negates general elections in favor of party primaries where a handful of hard right radicals can dominate.

This is especially true in some rural districts where tiny cadres of activists, again mostly Republicans, dominate the picks for primaries. It doesn’t matter what the general public thinks or wants. A narrow minority worms its way in power and becomes beholden not necessarily to the party overall, but a little slice of it.

That is why so little gets done.

The very fact that leaders like Howell and Norment are in place and the primary system will make McAuliffe’s efforts very difficult. One wonders if you could go outside the diseased legislative system and forced change through the courts.

It worked before against such Virginia travesties as Massive Resistance. Something to consider.

Tobacco Commission Needs Huge Makeover

tobacco leafBy Peter Galuszka

One more glaring example of mass corruption in Virginia is the grandly named Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission formed 14 years ago to dole out Virginia’s share of a $206 billion settlement among 45 other states with cigarette makers.

I’ve been writing for years about how millions of dollars are doled out with little oversight to economic development projects supposedly helpful to the former tobacco-growing parts of the state from the bright leaf belt around Dinwiddie out west to the burley leaf land of the mountains.

There have been no-strings giveaways to absentee tobacco quota holders, a board member sent to prison for siphoning off grant money and the shenanigans of the extended Kilgore family which is very politically powerful in those parts. The commission even figured in the McDonnell corruption trial starring the former and now convicted governor and back-slapping witnesses for the prosecution, entrepreneur and tobacco-believer Jonnie R. Williams Sr.

I revisit the issue in Sunday’s Washington Post and I ask the obvious question of why no one seems to watching the commission. I raise broader ones, too, such as why the commission  serves only people in the tobacco belt. That doesn’t seem fair since the Attorney General’s office represented all of the state in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement against four major tobacco firms. People in Hampton Roads, Arlington, Onancock and Winchester should be benefit but get nothing from the settlement. They didn’t  because tobacco road legislators pulled a fast one back in 1999 when they set things up.

There needs to be a thorough disassembling of the commission’s current governance structure with many more people far from Tobacco Road included. There’s far too much family and friend back-scratching as it is. It is like watching a vintage episode of the Andy Griffith show but it really isn’t funny.

(Hat tip to James A. Bacon Jr. who spotted the commission as a great story back in the year 2000 when he was publisher of Virginia Business).

So, please read on.

Ignoring Voter Fraud in Fairfax County

voting_in_fairfax

Voting in Fairfax County. (Photo credit: Fairfax Times)

The Democratic Party has engaged in a lot of loose talk about “voter suppression,” especially in regard to voter I.D. requirements. But you hear precious little about the opposite problem — local officials turning a blind eye to people voting illegally.

According to Watchdog.org, the Fairfax County electoral board has turned over more than 200 cases of potential voter fraud to Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney Raymond Morrogh for investigation. The names appeared on voter rolls even though individuals had excused themselves from jury duty on the grounds that they were not citizens. Of those, 117 had a history of voting in Virginia.

Morrough, a Democrat, has declined to prosecute — or even to respond to the electoral board. Said Brian Schoeneman, secretary of the Electoral Board and a Republican: “People say there’s no voter fraud because there are no convictions. One of the most frustrating things is to have evidence that, on its face, justifies further investigation … and then to see zero action.”

Selective justice like this is part of a national pattern, Catherine Engelbrecht, president of Texas-based True the Vote, told Watchdog.org. As it happens, she knows something about selective justice. Her organization was one of the conservative groups singled out for special attention by the Internal Revenue Service.

Does anyone feel as if the fundamental structures of democratic governance are corroding? (Hat tip: Tim Wise.)

– JAB

Williams: How to Reach the High and Mighty

Photo by the Richmond Times-Dispatch

Photo by the Richmond Times-Dispatch

By Peter Galuszka

The McDonnell corruption trial has its high and low moments. One theme stands out: the trial is a guidebook of how to gain broach and compromise the power elite of Virginia politicians, in this case the Republicans.

Here are a few takeaways:

  1. Want to break in? Having a private jet is a must, testified former Star Scientific CEO Jonnie R. Williams Sr., also the government’s star witness with immunity from prosecution. By offering the jet to politicians and aides, you a captive audience for the length of the flight. Williams said he got up to six hours of almost undivided attention from Robert McDonnell when he and the former governor were flying in his plane across country from a campaign event with the GOP’s Meg Whitman, then running for governor of California in the Fall of 2010. That’s when they started talking in earnest about promoting Jonnie’s products. Richmond’s odd location is a problem with travel. Having your own plane helps the pooh-bahs bypass “ RIC, IAD, and DCA and fly directly to GOP.”

  2. Republicans like living large. Big names impress. Just after McDonnell won the governorship in 2009, he and his wife meet at the Four Season Hotel in Manhattan. Williams was there with his buddy, high fashion male model Brad Kroenig. During that meeting Ms. McDonnell thought it would be a great idea if she could get an Oscar de la Renta dress for the upcoming inaugural ball. Williams bought drinks, but not any drink. He blew $5,000 on a bottle a Louis XIII cognac. Asked by a defense lawyer why he did so, Williams replied, “I actually don’t care for it all that much but some other seem to.”
  3. Looking for funding under strange circumstances? Somehow Virginia’s Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission always seems to pop up. On his cross-country trip with Williams, McDonnell suggested it as a source of research funding for Williams’ Anatabloc dietary supplement., Williams said. Apparently the plan was to get the University of Virginia to ask for research money, keeping Star and the governor a step or two removed. McDonnell encouraged Williams to contact Jerry Kilgore, a former attorney general and partner at McGuire Woods. Jerry, who later became Williams’ lawyer, has a brother, Terry, who is head of the tobacco commission. In an unrelated matter, the tobacco commission was involved with the sudden and strange resignation this summer of state Sen. Phil Puckett just as a key vote on Medicaid expansion was to happen. The plan was for Puckett to take a top-paying, sinecure-type job at the tobacco commission but it didn’t work out once it was publicized.

As the trial continues, there may be other tips for success. I will pass them along as soon as I can.

One Very Sad Day In Court

maureen_and_bob(1)By Peter Galuszka

One literally could have heard a pin drop in U.S. District Court in Richmond today.

William Burck, lawyer for  Maureen McDonnell, said in his opening argument in a trial that Virginia’s Former First Lady who has been indicted no 14 corruption charges along with her former governor husband was “collateral damage” in a deeply troubled marriage. She had developed a “crush” on the businessman who had given her and her husband more than $150,000 in loans, gifts and cash.

“Their marriage had broken down,” Burck said. “They were barely on speaking terms,” Burck said. Ms. McDonnell was angry and frustrated that her husband had been working 16-hour days in public service for 20 plus years and had little to show for it. They had five children. Big debt. Bob wasn’t paying attention to her.

As John L. Brownlee, McDonnell’s lawyer, said, McDonnell’s hard public service work “took a toll on his family and a terrible toll on his wife. He was not nearly as successful as a husband. He tried to keep from the public the most painful aspects of his marriage. He never humiliated her. He never scorned her.”

In pops Jonnie R. Williams Sr., a smooth-talking entrepreneur pushing a new anti-aging cream made in part from tobacco plants (although his firm, Star Scientific, had lost a couple hundred million over the previous decade.) Brownlee described the star witness for the prosecution as a “master manipulator.”

“This marriage broke apart and an outsider, another man, would invade and poison their marriage,” Brownlee said.

At one point, Maureen was said to have “hated” Bob who wrote a lengthy email to her trying to reconcile. In fact, Brownlee said, the Governor will read the email when he goes on the jury stand during the trial that is expected to last at least five weeks. When McDonnell sent the email, however, “that evening, Maureen was distracted by other interests.”

One could get snarky about this seemingly over-the-top soap opera. But no one in the courtroom seemed to be smirking. It is strange enough to be at a trial like this in a place like Virginia that considers itself above the petty corruption that plagues other states. It is even stranger to hear such excruciatingly personal and painful things about the state’s top former executive and his wife.

It could be that a “throw Maureen under the bus” strategy may work to get both of them off. After all, she wasn’t a public official and could do what she wanted as far as gifts. The prosecution’s opening statement drew a rather detailed and concise outline of just what and when the McDonnells solicited Williams’ largesse, right down to the “thank you” emails when money arrived in the bank to Maureen’s cell phone snap shot of Bob wearing slick, wraparound sunglasses while driving Williams’ Ferrari.

Giving the McDonnell’s the benefit of the doubt, I have to say I’ve heard this kind of story before among long-married couples suffering through middle age as their children are ready to fly away. Their stories may not be dramatic but I’ve got to admit that Bob McDonnell never seemed to exhibit such grabby behavior before.

This raises another tough question. What should “public service” be and how much should it take from one’s private life. More importantly, why can’t it support men and women who pursue it? Should it be only for the rich?

McDonnell slogged through relatively low-paying jobs like the General Assembly, Attorney General and Governor. He had five kids and a wife who seemed very freaked out by being First Lady – a role she apparently never wanted. She came from a Northern Virginia civil service family that didn’t exactly have a grand disposable income.

Consider two other Virginia governors –former and current. Mark Warner, now U.S. Senator, is rich from his telecommunications investments made years ago. At one point he was said to be worth a couple hundred million dollars. Gov. Terry McAuliffe, another former businessman, is likewise wealthy but probably not as rich as Warner.

Should these people be in office because they are rich? Should public service be available only to those with great portfolios? What would Thomas Jefferson say?

The McDonnell Trial Gets Underway

mcdonnells arraignedBy Peter Galuszka

This morning marks the start of the long-awaited corruption trial for Robert F. McDonnell and his wife Maureen, the first ever involving the governor of a state that fancies itself above petty corruption.

McDonnell, a Republican, faces 14 felony counts in federal court including wire fraud and lying on a federal loan application. This morning’s session at U.D. District Court before Judge James Spencer will involve jury selection. The trial is expected to last six weeks.

It promises to be a cross between a soap opera and a reality show with overtones of a Greek tragedy. Involved are strong personalities, a classic triangle (the governor, his wife and Jonnie Williams, a businessman who is the feds star witness) and lots of big, big Virginia names. The lawyers’ list reads like the wine list at a five-star restaurant.

There will be lots of politics and lots of venality, such as why Ms. McDonnell insisted on Williams supplying luxury trinkets and money, whether the First Family, regarded as a fine example of Virginia public service, was living far beyond their means and why the state’s squeaky-clean image is a myth.

A few more takeaways:

  • This is a federal case, not a state one. There is no way the case could ever have gone anywhere in state court – the laws are nonexistent. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a federal case and, traditionally, federal courts are used to go after local politicians and business people. Remember that it was the feds who nailed Al Capone in federal court, not Chicago or Illinois state courts. Just arguing that state law doesn’t go that far is irrelevant.
  • It’s going to get very ugly. Much of the melodrama takes place in the governors’ Capitol Hill house ruled by Ms. McDonnell and from which the case originally stemmed. It had to do with an executive chef who was accused of theft and was tried. He blew the whistle on the relationship between McDonnells, the gifts and Williams. Now, we find that the defense may subpoena the housekeeper for previous Democratic Govs. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, both now U.S. Senators. It could be an episode of “Housewives of the Executive Mansion.” Stay tuned.
  • There’s no getting around the politics. I have to admit that it seemed very curious last year that the McDonnell case seemed to spring up from nowhere in the governor’s last year in office (he can’t succeed himself). It happened during a bitter gubernatorial race between hard-right Republican Kenneth Cuccinelli and Democratic fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. There were media leaks galore last summer which made for great, gossipy reading but one did wonder about the propriety of it all.
  • Suppose the McDonnells are acquitted? If so, what was all the Sound and Fury about? Blogger Paul Goldman, former head of the state Democratic Party, believes an acquittal could bring calls for the resignation of U.S. Atty. Gen Eric Holder. Sounds extreme.

All in all, the trial represents a transitional phase for Virginia. Its old ways, conceited and quaint they may have been, have faded. Welcome to the 21st Century, y’all!

Brat and Cantor: Two Unsavory Choices

BratCantorWebBy Peter Galuszka

The hottest political race coming up is the Republican primary this Tuesday involving the 7th Congressional District now represented by Eric Cantor, a powerful conservative who is House Majority Leader and could possibly one day be Speaker of the House.

His opponent, college professor David Brat, has gotten much national attention because Brat is trying to out-Tea Party Cantor who tried to shed his Main Street background and led the insurgent Tea Party parade during their days of glory back in 2010.

But if you want to see just how intellectually barren both men are, read what they wrote in opposing columns in the Richmond newspaper this morning. They show just how out of touch they are and how they are dominated by a tiny group of hard-right fanatics who have split the state GOP.

Brat is an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College in the quaint railroad town of Ashland that might be a set for a Jimmy Stewart movie.

He spends a lot of time debunking Cantor’s ridiculous claim that he is a “liberal” college professor but the very fact that he is doing this is a throwback to the Old Virginny days of yore. First, off, what is wrong with being a “liberal professor?” Are we supposed to have academics that pass a litmus test? Maybe Brat would have House UnAmerican Activities Committees on colleges to make sure that “liberal” professors don’t poison young minds.

Secondly, the use of the term is an exercise in euphemism that smacks of the Massive Resistance days when a candidate was accused of being a “social engineer” if he or she backed integration and civil rights.

And while Brat makes some fair points about Cantor masquerading as a budget hawk, his ideas on finally dealing with undocumented foreign-born residents are downright scary and are obviously intended as a populist ploy to the lower elements of voters.

Indeed, Brat’s column raises serious questions about just how well he understands economic reality, especially when it comes to immigration. Forces are aligning for some kind of long-overdue resolution of immigration. He claims Cantor backs amnesty for undocumented workers. (If so, what’s wrong with that?)

Brat paints a weird picture in which “illegals,” working in collusion with giant corporations, are stealing jobs from “real” Virginians. I won’t go into the borderline racist and nativist aspects of his statements. They smack of the older days of the No Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan that wanted to keep non-Protestants, such as Catholic Irish, Poles, Germans and Italians, or Chinese or Japanese, out of the country.

Strangely and even more troubling, Brat simply doesn’t understand the American labor market. One of the reason so many immigrants are in some sectors of the economy, such as construction and poultry processing, are because the jobs are dirty, messy and there aren’t enough native-American workers willing or able to do them. That is why turkey processing plants in the Shenandoah Valley have so many hard-working Hispanic immigrants. Ditto construction jobs.

At the other end of the spectrum, Professor Brat ignores the dilemma at the high-end of the economy. American universities are not producing enough software and other engineers so we have to import them through visa programs. Some companies are so hungry for foreign intellectual talent that immigrants end up working just across the border in Canada where it is easier to get visas although their efforts support American firms.

This may come as news to Brat in his little college town, but the world is becoming more global and, like it or not, there will be more foreign-born people working here and elsewhere. His complaint that illegals are getting soldier jobs that Americans might want is strange. The military needs to wind down after 13 years of war. One wonders if Brat even has a passport and has traveled overseas.

Cantor’s column is the usual Eddie Haskell boilerplate. He spends a lot of time tearing down the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have launched at least six unsuccessful assaults on it and still refuse to accept the Supreme Court’s decision of a couple of years ago.

Generously funded by the managed care industry, Cantor raises no alternatives to the current health care system that is plagued with overbilling, a lack of transparency and has cruelly prevented millions from getting coverage because of “pre-existing conditions.” Granted the roll out of exchanges was a mess last year, but health care sign ups have exceeded expectations in Virginia. The expected number was 134,800 in enrollment plans under the ACA. At the beginning of May it was 216,300.

Neither candidate talks about crucial issues such as income inequality, climate change or America’s changing role in world diplomacy. Neither talks about about poverty or smart growth or student debt.

Cantor is likely to win Tuesday but neither man seems worthy of leadership. They are just more evidence about how the right-wing fringe has been allowed to highjack the agenda. As this continues to happen, Virginia will be stuck in its ugly past.

A Building Year

sarvis

Photo credit: MyFoxDC.com

by James A. Bacon

Ask Robert Sarvis if he thinks he really has a chance to win the race for the U.S. Senate, and he won’t insult your intelligence with a lot of bogus reasons why he just might be able to pull it off. Even though the Libertarian candidate garnered 6.5% last year in his run last year for governor, he acknowledges that many of his votes came from Virginians who just couldn’t stomach the Democratic and Republican nominees. The same cannot be said of his opponents this year. But he still makes a strong case why pulling the Libertarian lever won’t be wasted this fall: He’s building the Libertarian Party for the future.

I caught up with Sarvis a couple of weeks ago when he was in Richmond. We sat in a booth at Kuba Kuba, a great little Cuban restaurant in the Fan, and munched deep-fried plaintains. No one seemed to recognize him as the third most serious candidate for Senate this year. Perhaps the same could have been said of Republican Ed Gillespie as well, but the Republican candidate would have been accompanied by his campaign minions. Sarvis, who lives in Northern Virginia, was traveling alone. His incredibly low profile in early May did not augur especially well for his odds in the campaign but it was fine with me. We got to chat without interruption.

I was curious: Why was he running? Campaigning against Gillespie, a savvy Washington insider with access to boodles of cash, and Democrat Mark Warner, an entrenched senator who could tap millions in PAC money, was a political suicide mission. The two heavyweights could raise more moolah than Sarvis could dream of. They had professional campaign organizations. They had the backing of the Democratic and Republican party organizations. What did Sarvis have? A Rolodex of volunteers, an email list of mostly nickle-and-dime contributors, a Twitter account and a Facebook page with about 17,000 followers between the two of them.

Here is his argument: The Libertarian Party built considerable momentum last year — 6.5% was a darn good showing for a third party candidate in Virginia. He also snagged 15% of the vote among young people (18 to 29-year-olds). He wants to maintain that momentum. He may not win this election but if the youth is the future, libertarians can reasonably hope to fare better in the years ahead.

One advantage Sarvis does enjoy is great name recognition for a third-party candidate. He is taking advantage of that to build a stronger campaign organization than the one he had in 2013. Lots of people were involved but he had no campaign manager. “Last year,” he says, “we were flying by the seat of our pants.”

The campaign is bigger than him, he says. He was working to get Libertarians on the ballot in all of Virginia’s congressional districts. For the first time in its history the Libertarian Party of Virginia has recruited candidates for every congressional seat. (Gathering the 1,000 signatures from registered voters to get them on the ballot is a different matter.) Libertarians can stretch resources by sharing campaign literature and contact lists, and Sarvis wants to ensure that, at a minimum, each candidate has a website. As for renting mailing lists and email lists, he conceded, that was probably beyond the means of his campaign. “The lists cost money. We’re not playing at that level.”

That’s an understatement. According to the Virginia Public Access Project, as of March 31, Warner had shaken the trees for $7.2 million, Gillespie had scooped up $2.2 million and Sarvis had raised… $0. None of the big moneyed interests that bankroll political candidates are likely to support a Libertarian committed to shrinking the size and scope of government along with the size and scope of those moneyed interests’ influence on government. As far as I could tell, Sarvis had no particular plan for beating the bushes. While he is obviously intelligent and passionate, I did not detect the kind of hunger, drive and chutzpah that it takes to shake down donors for thousands of dollars.

Still, Sarvis may fare well again as the “None of the Above” candidate. Public approval of the two-party duopoly continues to plumb new lows, Congress as an institution ranks somewhere between drug dealers and child molesters in the popular esteem and, in the wake of Obamacare and the VA scandal, vast swaths of the electorate have lost faith in the competence of the federal government. “Last year, the candidates were the negatives,” said Sarvis. “This year it’s the federal government.” Both Warner, a senator, and Gillespie, a former lobbyist, are Washington insiders. Voters tired of a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee will cast a vote for the Libertarian.

Sarvis had not yet honed his key campaign themes. Refreshingly, he didn’t recite a litany of highly honed talking points. But there was no sign of the message discipline characteristic of successful candidates.

I shared my conviction that most Virginians are “natural libertarians,” pragmatists who just want to live their lives and be left alone, with no great desire to impose their views and values on others. Virginians are worried that government spending is out of control but they are not doctrinaire Libertarians who hew to radical notions such as scrapping Social Security, privatizing the military or legalizing heroin. Sarvis agreed. “We want to show our pragmatic, moderate side,” he said. He wants to position himself as someone interested in governing. Continue reading

Rethinking David Brat

BratBy Peter Galuszka

Knocking David Brat as I did a couple of days ago got the predictably nasty response from Rebellion-land.

So, I went back and looked into it a little more, without an eye towards his Tea Party links.

What did I find a mixed  bag for the economics professor who’s challenging Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. There also is some bad news involving rabidly right-wing media celebrity Ann Coulter, a true rug-biter.

The interesting news comes from Brat’s Website:

“Throughout his entire career, Eric Cantor has supported countless measures and budgets to increase our debt and grow government. Despite his fiscal rhetoric, Eric Cantor voted for new spending measures like Medicare Part D, TARP bailouts, Chinese bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, two unfunded wars, and backed the kick-the-can-down-the-road Ryan-Murray budget.”

No argument there. I will never forget my interview with Eric Cantor during the Great Recession and he told me, emphatically, “We have to get the federal government out of the capital markets!”

I replied: “But you voted for TARP.”

There was a 25 second pause and then the Congressman said, “It was a crisis situation.”

There was another one of these spending things involving the ultra-capable but ultra expensive new jet fighter, the F-35. Veteran aircraft engine maker Pratt & Whitney had the Pentagon OK to make the engine for the fighter. But General Electric and Rolls Royce wanted part of the multi-billion-dollar expenses and pressed to have an alternative engine made as well, adding to the overall cost. The Pentagon didn’t want it.

But Rolls Royce had just moved their North American headquarters to Northern Virginia and was building a jet engine factory near Petersburg. So guess which budget-hawk, cost-slashing super  hero pushed the second engine? Eric Cantor, that’s who. I don’t believe the second engine went through, but you get my drift.

It was also way too much inside baseball when the Richmond Times-Dispatch acted as a personal shill for Cantor while his wife served on the board of Media General, which owned the newspaper. Warren Buffett’s outfit eventually bought the paper but the conflict was rather odious while it happened.

Now don’t get me wrong. I fault Barack Obama for NOT SPENDING ENOUGH to get America out of the recession and disagree with Brat on just about everything economically. But I must admit that he’s right about noting Cantor’s two-faced posturing as a fiscal conservative when he went along with every budget-busting scheme George W. Bush could dream up,  especially two wars that we haven’t paid for yet. One of them wasn’t even necessary.

What I don’t like about Brat is that he attracts the wistful eye of someone like Coulter who is on a tear to deny amnesty to undocumented aliens. And since she claims that if amnesty occurs, Texas will be swamped with lots of new workers from “you know where” and you know what color they will be.

Is this a racist view? Damned right it is. OK, all you commenters, led by ultra-tough DJR, I want to see a lot of piling on this time! I am ready for you! Bacon can participate but he is basically a pantywaist.

Coulter and the Tea Party give me plenty of pause about Brat although he’s right about Cantor on many things.

Cantor’s Brat Problem

BratBy Peter Galuszka

The jockeying for power among Virginia conservatives is certainly curious if not frightening. It seems the diminished Tea Party is trying to make a comeback and relive its heyday of 2010 at the expense of moderates.

I personally hope they don’t because the movement brings up far too much hateful baggage of xenophobia, racism and mindless cost cutting while posturing as true-blue Americans. The more they do this, the more they conjure up some unsavory memories in American history such as the Know-Nothings or the Ku Klux Klan.

The flash point seems to be David Brat, an economics professor at Randolph Macon College in Ashland. Brat is trying to give House Majority Leader Eric Cantor a run for his money, which in itself, is not a bad thing.

Cantor has long been the tool of the white Richmond area elite. He used to be solidly Main Street although he did try to jump ahead of the Tea Party parade in 2009 and 2010 and it seemed very awkward. By conservative standards, Cantor is much more of a moderate than one might expect. The Heritage Action for America rates Cantor at 52 percent for conservative voting. Robert Goodlatte gets a whopping 75 percent Mark Warner (good for him) only 2 percent.

This is where it gets weird. Brat complains that Cantor isn’t conservative enough or tough enough on undocumented workers and the like. Cantor fires back with over-the-top ads claiming that Brat is a closet liberal for having worked on a bi-partisan economics group for Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine.

Meanwhile, reliable GOP operative Linwood Cobb gets ousted by Tea Party firebrand Fred Gruber as head of the 7th Congressional District Republican Committee.Cantor’s 7th District stretches from the booming, mostly white suburbs of Henrico County to rural, sleepy farmlands into Madison. There’s plenty of Main Street and Tea Party to spare in the district.

According to The Washington Post, the fringe conservatives in the GOP are angry that moderate Republicans are going forth with more sensible policies than sticking it to the innocent children of undocumented workers and trying to turn the clock backwards to ban same-sex marriage.

That just ain’t going to happen with lawsuits popping up all over the place and court rulings overturning. Eleven state and federal courts have ruled in favor of ending same-sex marriage bans, including Virginia. In fact, the Old Dominion’s case was heard at the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals this week and it, another or all will end up at the Supreme Court at some point. The momentum is clearly towards allowing same-sex marriage.

Brat has said he wants to return power from the federal level to the states, but if it means facilitating discriminating marriage bans I hope he fails.

It will be fascinating watching this all play out. The Tea Party rode a wave of bitter frustration resulting from the Great Recession that cut across both parties. It hit upon a mixed, mash-up of themes involving populism, raw Americanism, anti-Obamaism, and so on. It has been, by turns, a reaction to the tremendous inequality imbalance and pure racism. In other words, it’s part of many unrelated and sometimes unsavory themes. I went to some Tea Party meetings and found some bright folks and also people I thought should be locked up as border-line dangerous.

What seems to be lacking now is any intelligent policy planning for the slowly growing economy. While the feds have bailed out failing banks, there’s little help for the average borrower who needs help. Thus, they are forced or choose to hang on to cash and spending is anemic.

If Brat is supposed to be an economist, one would assume he might understand these things. I guess it wouldn’t matter anyway, because Virginia’s system of state and federal electoral districts is rigged so that a tiny minority of outspoken crackpots gets to be kingmaker. This is not likely to happen with Cantor during this June’s GOP primary but it a scary and real possibility.

And it is yet another reason why the Democrats like Terry McAuliffe and Mark Herring are increasingly turning to or are considering turning to independent or executive actions (not supporting the same-sex ban, stripping back McDonnell-Cuccinelli-era regulation of abortion clinics, possibly expanding Medicaid by order).

The Brats and the Cantors have done plenty to destroy bipartisanship. The state and the nation face far more serious challenges than letting gays get married or putting the screws to a hard-working, tax-paying worker who happens to be undocumented because he or she was brought to this country at age four.