Bacon's Rebellion

From today’s Road to Ruin blog:

The Route 288 project, which Virginia taxpayers funded to the tune of $434 million, was always billed as an “economic development” project. The primary impetus for overriding the normal allocation of state transportation dollars and running up a $248 million project deficit (which was repaid subsequently with General Fund dollars) was the desire to attract Capital One to the West Creek office park.

In 1999 the giant credit card company was searching for a site to establish a national operations center expected to employ 8,000 employees. One of the sites under consideration was the West Creek office park west of Richmond. Capital One demanded some $240 million in transportation improvements, including completion of 288, as a condition for locating there.

It turns out, according to a nugget buried in a Richmond Times-Dispatch investigation into the politics of Route 288, that Capital One was seriously considering another site to the north of Richmond. Indeed, when Richmond business tycoons William Goodwin and “Booty” Armstrong revived an option to purchase West Creek from the original developer, the newspaper reports, “they thought the company had chosen a site north of Richmond at Interstate 295.”

That’s quite a revelation: There was another site in the Richmond region that satisfied, or came very close to satisfying, Capital One’s requirements — without the need to build a $434 million, four-lane, limited-access highway!

Let me clarify the issue here: The Commonwealth of Virginia spent $434 million to ensure that Capital One would locate in West Creek west of Richmond as opposed to a different location north of Richmond.

Pardon me while I temporarily take leave of my senses. That’s absolutely friggin’ insane! That is an unprecedented waste of state funds! No friggin’ wonder people don’t want to pay more in taxes to build more roads! Politicians cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions! Politicians should all be hanged!

OK, I feel better now.

At this point, I don’t know if the State Board of Elections count matters much, but as of 12:57 today they are showing a 446 vote lead for McDonnell.

I would suspect the legal teams for both sides consider plenty of votes still “in play.”

Sorry: One more post on the election. Last week both of the campaigns mentioned the July Mason-Dixon poll showing Kaine up by one as a turning point in the campaign. Just for giggles here is the long string of comments it produced on this blog at the time. We should all read it and reflect on the genius or foolishness we displayed (Day was the genius, of course). If any of you want to come out from behind the “anonymous” tag, now’s your chance. Did the blog echo chamber add to its impact?

Reviewing some of my own comments on polls this cycle one of my major screwups was reading the final Washington Post poll. Once they posted the full results I read it as a sample error that was too Democratic. What is showed, and I’m sure smarter folks than me saw, was an increased level of Democratic intensity among likely voters (and/or a drop off of intensity among Republicans, who were getting less and less likely to vote.) The tip off — the higher percentage of respondents listed as “pro-choice” than in the earlier poll. I read that as a sign the poll was in error, but in reality it was an indicator of who was planning to come to vote and who was scheduling a dental appointment on that day.

Jim, I’ve just read your New Man, New Ideas piece in this week’s Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine. You sound breathless and almost giddy at the potential of Governor-elect Kaine to integrate your long-advocated transportation solutions into state policy. Your picture even has the Tim Kaine eyebrow thing!

Wait a minute.

None of these new policy initiatives were debated during the campaign–there was no time, what with Hitler and all. They’ve barely been debated on these pages, except between Risse and Hyde. As you note, toward the end of the campaign, Kaine suddenly unveiled “growth curb” language and not much else. A lot of these ideas, when commuters learn about them, will not be greeted with instant enthusiasm. A lot of the ideas are very long-range and hold no real promise of relief anytime soon.

Let’s see how these regional meetings go before you get too carried away. Will these ideas be presented at the meetings or will the meetings just be for a long line of speakers to sound off with their pet ideas? Are advocates of smart growth policies prepared to speak and attempt to capture the media’s attention? I’d certainly like to see Governor-elect Kaine make an affirmative case for the things you hold dear, Jim, but I wonder if he and his staff have really thought this through–or had time to think it through.

The Nov. 11, 2005, edition of Bacon’s Rebellion is now online. You can read it here.

Blogs have flourished before major events, such as the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, and in response to major events, such as 9/11. The Virginia blogosphere exploded largely in anticipation of the 2005 state elections.

Now that the gubernatorial election (if not the AG race!) is over, will all of the blogs that have sprung up continue to publish? Will there be changes in format, consolidations, or pull-outs?

I’m betting we’ll see a blog shake-out. I would hope, however, that many of the political blogs will stick around to monitor the policy follow-through of the party/candidates they supported or analyzed. Debating death penalty and “sugar daddy” ads is fun, but the real action is in the trenches on transportation, education, and the state budget. There can never be too many eyes looking at who’s doing what to whom on those items.

Update: The future is now. Chad and Norm have thoughts on where blogs go from here.

In the wake of Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine’s victory on Tuesday, Governor Mark Warner raised his national profile and stature with an appearance today on the CBS program Face the Nation. Just being the Democratic counterpart to Sen. John McCain, the other FTN guest, gave Warner instant credibility.

Warner looked rested and well-prepared. He said the lesson of the Kaine victory was that “results matter.” He ticked off the accomplishments of his administration: deficits to surplus, education investments resulting in improved performance, and job creation in rural areas. In a subtle dig at President Bush, he restated his view, “In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, results matter.” Later, asked if President Bush’s late visit hurt Jerry Kilgore, Warner noted that he’d take a comparison between national “results” and Virginia “results” anytime.

On presidential aspirations, he said he had not made his decision yet, but he wanted to be part of the debate. He said he wanted Democrats to capture the “sensible center” and indicated that even if Democrats could win the presidency by taking 16 states, he didn’t know if they could govern. He urged a more national appeal by Democrats.

Asked near the end if he would have voted for the Iraq War, Warner ducked the question, suggesting that Democrats should not refight the start of the war, but instead focus on a plan to end it and prepare for future conflicts with a new force structure. He sounded very authoritative in his brief foray into defense policy.

In today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, Ross Mackenzie said, “Kaine’s victory now positions Warner even more strongly to become Hillary’s No. 2.” Sen. McCain himself said it was “reasonable to assume” that Sen. Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. I think Warner’s performance did nothing to dampen enthusiasm for him as a ticket mate for the New York Senator, but it also helped position him as a very viable potential candidate for the number one slot in his own right. He may be too conservative and cautious for the party’s left wing, however.

Speaking of conservative, some might have smiled when FTN host Bob Schieffer described Governor-elect Kaine as a “conservative Democrat.” Warner described Kaine as being “comfortable in his own skin” and emphasized Kaine’s faith. Warner suggested Democrats needed to comfortable with people in “law firms, board rooms, and county fairs.”

On the Sunday after Virginia’s election, pundits looked at the results through lenses large and small.

National political columnist David Broder, writing in the Washington Post, said Virginia was swept up in a national trend toward the pragmatic center. He explained the Virginia gubernatorial race this way:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore ran a classic version of the last decade’s “bring-out-the-base” campaign, promising to fight taxes, crack down on crime, curb abortions, impose the death penalty — and, as an added fillip, get tough on illegal immigrants.

He got out the base, but lost heavily in the fast-growing suburbs to Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine, the Democrat who campaigned on support for schools and balanced growth.

VCU Professor Robert Holsworth, writing in Richmond Times-Dispatch, had the most complete and thorough examination of the forces that coalesced to produce Kaine’s victory:

Outcomes are determined by the choices candidates make and the campaigns they wage. The Kaine campaign tied itself as closely as possible to Warner’s popularity, but shrewdly did not attempt to mimic the Warner campaign of 2001, highlighting the distinctive features of Kaine’s identity and capitalizing on the changing demographics of Virginia’s suburbs.

Holsworth also looked ahead:

Kaine’s major challenge will be in building legislative support for initiatives that many may see as extending beyond the actual mandate of a stay-the-course election.

Looking at Tuesday’s election both large and small was Bob Gibson of the Daily Progress. Gibson reviewed some the stunning suburban results, then focused on the 32nd District race between Republican anti-abortion activist Dick Black and Democrat David Poisson. Gibson read much into Black’s juvenile tactic of mispronouncing Poisson’s name as “Poison”:

People who go out of their way to mispronounce a name may be saying more about how they view fairness and courtesy than they might realize.

Even in politics, language still matters and civility is still a part of the art of persuasion.

Black, of course, lost decisively.

Going very small was Jeff Schapiro of the Times-Dispatch, writing that Tim Kaine’s victory was “revenge” for former Republican Governor Linwood Holton, Kaine’s father-in-law. Holton is apparently one of Schapiro’s all-time favorites, and with the distinguished breakthrough Virginian recovering in the hospital from cancer surgery, his sentiments are understandable.

For disheartened Republicans, retired military officer Del. Scott Lingamfelter tries to rally the troops with an “after action report.” Writing in the Times-Dispatch:

Some pundits have suggested that we lost the governor’s race because of negative campaigning coupled with a demographic shift in Loudoun and Prince William in Northern Virginia. In reality, we fell short in delivering a clear and persuasive message to our party’s base and swing voters who are anxious for real governmental reform.

Lingamfelter also presents a Republican agenda/call to arms. Somebody needed to.

Still to be heard from: Margaret Edds, Gordon Morse, Melanie Scarborough, Barnie Day, and Pat McSweeney.

Rodney Sobin, of Richmond, penned the following response to my column, “Coping with $60 Oil” (Oct. 31, 2005). As much as it pains me to think that there are people who disagree with me, I thought his comments worth posting on the blog:

Your column makes many good points with which I mostly agree. You are exactly on target in emphasizing energy efficiency. The scope for reducing energy use in transportation, homes, offices, and industry is tremendous, yet Virginia is just about last in the nation in promoting such approaches and the federal effort is anemic at best. And, as is often addressed by Bacon’s Rebellion contributors, Virginia’s land use and transportation policies are sorely lacking in terms of mitigating sprawl, including the automobile and energy intensive lifestyle it engenders.

I also agree with you about the hazards of picking winners. Promoting certain listed technologies often has the unintended consequence of impeding the development and use of other promising technologies or approaches. Instead, policies should promote some target level of performance rather than a particular technology. For example, a tax break or HOV lane access for hybrid cars may benefit someone with an SUV that gets, say, 18 mpg rather than 16. Whoop-de-do. While someone buying a non-hybrid 40 mpg fuel sipper that meets California superultralow emissions standards gets nothing. An incentive based on performance would be technology neutral–if you meet energy and environmental criteria you get the benefit regardless of fuel or engine type. If you have an efficient, clean car, then fine, regardless of whether it burns gasoline, diesel, ethanol, hydrogen, or dung or what type of engine, batteries, fuel cells, or whatever it has.

Where I do quibble with you is on subsidies and tax breaks. I agree with you in principle under close-to-perfect market conditions. But the reality is that conventional fossil energy is highly subsidized, not only in terms of tax breaks and the like but in terms of external costs that are not included in market prices. You and I do not pay for health impacts, agricultural and fishery losses, and ecological damage when we pay at the gas pump or pay the utility bill. Nor do we cover the international political and military costs of oil dependence.

The marketplace is tilted because of these implicit subsidies. For example, using EPA-approved methodologies, it is estimated that 989 deaths, over 1400 heart attacks, and over 23,000 asthma attacks are instigated by power plant emissions annually in Virginia. We don’t pay for these on our electric bills–and the victims are not compensated by utilities or ratepayers. [See http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower/ for more.] Another example: About a third of the nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, contributing to dead zones and other ills, comes from nitrogen oxides emitted by our vehicles, power plants, factories, furnaces, water heaters, and so on.

If the prices of coal, oil, and natural gas derived energy included these and other impacts then there would be a level playing field with solar and wind. But they do not. Therefore, taxes or fees to “correct” prices is justified under free market capitalism. Since “tax” is a dirty word in Virginia, tax breaks or other subsidies may be more palatable even if less efficient from an economic perspective as a means to level the playing field. Also, one can design fiscal policies to assure “revenue neutrality” (i.e., no net tax increase) and to mitigate impacts on the poor, who usually don’t have the means to replace clunkers with hybrids or upgrade furnaces, windows, etc.

It is true that it is difficult to evaluate in dollar terms external costs of health, ecological, and other damage in order to determine an appropriate tax or fee to impose or subsidy to offer. But we do know that these costs are far from zero and that it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong. Don’t let dirty energy sources get a free ride at the expense of our health and wellbeing, farms and fisheries, ecological balance, outdoor recreation, national security, and other values.

Mr. Sobin works for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, but the views do not necessarily reglect those of the DEQ.

Stuck on the Left Coast for a weekend of work, I am blogging about my home HD without the benefit of checking my facts at 7-11 or Farm Fresh.

Del. Tom Gear won 60:40 over faux Independent Randy Gilliland. Some bloggers predicted otherwise. Oops, they were wrong.

Let’s look at the numbers in a microcosm. My town, Poquoson, with 12,000 Virginians, is one sixth of the 91st HD. Tom Gear won 60:40 in my home. Based on our voiting demographics, he should have won 70:30 minimum and 80:20 tops.

The delta from 60:40 to 75:25(an appropriate number) in this election was 500 votes. If 500 more ‘Bull Islanders’ had voted for Gear, he would have been what is ‘expected’ (75:25).

Two Democrat city councilmen worked against Gear. One is a native and one is a retired USAF ‘move in’. If both men changed 250 votes based on their personal influence, that explains the whole deal. The home grown guy could do that if just his cousins voted with him.

Let’s say one fellow moved 150 votes and the other 100 votes – that means only 200 voters bought the dirt slinging by Gilliland.

So, the difference between 60:40 and 75:25 can be explained with names and faces in local politics. Looks like, as usual, our MSM – the Daily Press’s shrill attacks and bias was meaningless at the polls.

The big story is how our vote turnout was so low. Poquoson usually is in the top 3 of 134 counties and cities for vote turn out. Many reliable ‘R’ voters were too disgusted with Republicans in office to vote at all. I’d like to see more real analysis of the low turnout.

Oh, by the way, Gilliland never called to concede the election. Not gentlemanly, like his campaign.

Re Negative ads backfired in governor’s race, camps say

By CHRISTINA NUCKOLS, The Virginian-Pilot

© November 11, 2005

” Hutcheson said voters are partly to blame for the negative tone that has become more common in political campaigns.

“Voters are very lazy,” he said. “They’re uninformed because they choose to be uninformed. It’s depressing to me as someone who works in the business to see so many of our troops in Iraq dying for Iraqis to have the freedom to vote, the freedom we take for granted. … It’s a very sad commentary on our society, and so I think voters take some responsibility in the campaigns for how they’ve evolved over the years.”

This can’t be a correct quote, can it?

If it is, IF, I need to figure out a way to have it made in to a campaign button. Maybe a variation of “we’re not worthy” from Saturday Night Live skits…like “we’re so stooooopid”

Those uninformed voters fussed at me, GOP Party Bubba, from April through October over Kilgore’s platform and campaign.

But, what do I know? I guessed the final per cent vote wrong by 4 points. And, I thought the cartoon Kaine eating taxes was a good first step to reach for humor.

Guess it should have been funnier. I knew turnout would be low.

Governor-elect Kaine hit the ground running on Wednesday, bare hours after his clear and convincing victory at the polls. He named an impressive transition team and announced fulfillment of a campaign promise–he will tour the state at five “town hall” meetings to discuss the transportation “crisis.”

The town hall meetings are intriguing. Jeff Schapiro of the Times-Dispatch says they will “spotlight solutions to the state’s transportation problems that might include new taxes.” The Washington Post‘s Michael Shear and Carol Morello say the town halls will be used to “to rally public support for a legislative battle next year over fixing the state’s transportation problems.”

Wait a minute.

Didn’t we just have a campaign that criss-crossed the state and heard “the voice of the people?” Didn’t Tim Kaine run ads where he said he had a transportation plan and urged voters to “read my plan?” Didn’t Tim Kaine just sweep into office by capturing the suburbs and exburbs where transportation issues were front and center? Wasn’t Jerry Kilgore derided for proposing regional transportation authorities and “trusting the people?” Isn’t transportation easily the most studied and discussed issue of our time in Virginia?

Tim Kaine got over a million votes. He got votes where Democrats never got votes before. He ran on a transportation plan. If that isn’t an indicator that he’s rallied “public support for a legislative battle next year over fixing the state’s transportation problems,” what is?

I’ve played out the string on my “sabbatical” and Jim has graciously invited me to return to these pages. With editorial guidelines in place and most of the partisan passions of the election behind us, I felt like it was the right time to return. I look forward again to the give and take with contributors and readers that this blog provides in abundance.

Bacon’s Rebellion concentrates on the “wonkish” side of all things Virginia and I’m comfortable with that specialization, but I may also collaborate with other Virginia bloggers on their blog or on a blog that heads into Monty Python territory–something new and completely different. We’ll see. I know I have enjoyed my guest blogging over at Chad’s place, Commonwealth Conservative.

Tuesday’s election demonstrated that being civil and being positive matters. If we just add being substantive–talking about real issues realistically and offering solutions, not bromides–we might have something that makes a difference. Jim Bacon has always tried to be positive, civil, and substantive with this blog and his e-zine. I’m proud to be associated with it again.

Ok, wonks and political junkies, the election’s over. The Dems are scrambling for positions in the Kaine administrations and the ‘Pubs are wondering what to do with their lives. In either case, it’s time to get back to the serious business of building your personal network.

Bacon’s Rebellion ran a brief beta test of its “Political Network” back in August. Now it’s time to roll it out for real. Our Political Network is like those social networks you’ve heard a lot about. Except we’re not interested in your favorite band or your sexual orientation. This is for activists and politicos. Here’s what’s involved:

• Create a professional profile. This is like a curricula vitae converted into searchable database format. List your areas of expertise so other people can find you.
• Invite your political/activist associates to join and create their own profiles. Build your network.
• Use the search function. Looking for direct mail expertise? Use the search function. Tracking down someone who worked on the Byrne campaign? Use the search function. Looking for Wahoos engaged in politics? Use the search function.
• Keep a journal. This feature is like a blog — only simpler to set up.
• Promote events. Free listings for political/policy-related meetings, conferences, events.
• Start a message board. Any subject.
• Create a group. Maintain privacy — restrict communication to selected members of your group.

The service is free (unless you want premium features). Click here to register.

Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, made an interesting observation about the Virginia governor’s race in today’s Wall Street Journal:

[Jerry] Kilgore “ran on what voters, at least here in Virginia, perceive as national issues: guns, immigration, gay rights, death penalty. That strategy failed. … The odd thing is that if Mr. Kilgore had been running against [Tim] Kaine for the Senate, he might have won.

Senate races are highly ideological in Virginia. But governor’s contests are quite different: They are non-ideological. Mr. Kaine adjusted to this reality, jettisoning the liberalism of his days as mayor of Richmond. Mr. Kilgore stuck to his conservative views with only a few fudges.”

There may be something to do this. Many Virginians emphasize the ideological qualifications of the warriors they send into the hyper-polarized environment of Washington, D.C. That doesn’t mean they like the polarization — they just understand that the state’s two senators are powerless to change it, and they might as well send representatives to Washington equipped to do battle there. But electing a governor is a different matter. A governor can set the tone for a state, as Mark Warner so clearly did. A huge majority of voters appreciate Warner’s pragmatic, problem-solving approach. Tim Kaine got the message, Jerry Kilgore did not.