Bacon's Rebellion

The Audit Bureau of Circulation, the notes the Saturday version of the Wall Street Journal, will publish its semi-annual figures on newspaper circulation, and the news is not expected to be good. Gannett, the nation’s largest publisher with 100 newspapers, has already said its circulation is down 2.5 percent from year-ago levels. Knight Ridder’s numbers are down 2.9 percent. The Tribune Co. warns that its readership is down 4 percent.

“More Americans are getting their news online; about 30 percent of adults turned to the Internet for news in 2004, compared with almost none in 1996,” the WSJ notes. Newspapers are scrambling to make sure that online readers get their news through the newspapers’ own websites, not filtered through Yahoo, MSN or other Internet-only sites.

But the Internet-based model is not as attractive as the traditional newspaper model. Yes, Internet advertising is up, but it doesn’t generate the same revenues per reader that print ads do. Newspapers may succeed at retaining readers, and they may succeed at generating more Internet advertising, but I am skeptical that Internet advertising will be sufficient to support the large news staffs we saw in the newspapers’ glory years.

Publication of our Editorial Guidelines is way overdue. These policies arose out of the discussions that took place the Charlottesville blogger’s conference in August and follow-up posts on the Bacon’s Rebellion blog. Will Vehrs, a former contributor to Bacon’s Rebellion (we miss you, Will, sniff! sniff!), deserves most of the credit (or onus) for composing our guidelines. He wrote the first draft and posted it here. After reviewing the animated blogger commentary, I made some modest amendments. Unfortunately, I let the project languish until an exchange with Waldo Jaquith inspired me to get off my duff and finish the job.

Bacon’s Rebellion has no intention of imposing its guidelines on anyone else, or even insisting that every blog needs a set of guidelines.

Our goal is simply to make Bacon’s Rebellion a professional and credible source of news, information and commentary for Virginia, and we hold ourselves to the highest standards. We will make our editorial guidelines accessible to the public, and we expect readers to hold us accountable when we fall short.

You can read the Bacon’s Rebellion editorial guidelines here.

I know that purists sniff at suggestions there is any meaning in compilations like this, but take a look at Real Clear Politics now that Mason Dixon and Rassmussen are posted. The televised debate was October 9 and the Kilgore death penalty ads started two, three days later. Kaine then had his lowest result in a published poll (42) but his response and the Bnai Brith and editorial page assault that landed on Kilgore had their impact. I got the faux “Club for Growth” mailer at my house on Oct. 24, right after Kilgore got his best result (48). I don’t know when the 2,000th military death in Iraq was exactly, or the Libby indictment, but the timing was hardly great for Kilgore. The final push is on to make illegal immigration an issue high on voter radars by Tuesday.

This weekend will (and can) make all the difference, but the weather will be so good fewer Virginians will be huddled around the TeeVee to absorb all those wonderful ads (except football fans — what is a spot now selling for in that Tech-Miami game? You don’t want to know) and the prediction for Tuesday is for a stellar Indian Summer day. At this point in close elections Republicans are usually caught praying for rain.

Shaun Kenney offers what he calls a “conservative” response to House Speaker William Howell’s legislative package targeting illegal aliens. Here’s the core of Kenney’s argument:

Will these policies of shooing out illegal immigrants of workhouses, denying them in-state tuition, sanctioning businesses who hire illegal immigrants, etc. cure the problem? Or are we yet again treating the symptoms? … What then will Virginia’s illegal immigrants do? Will they work? Will they stay at home? How will they earn a living?

The underlying problem, he contends, is the strain that illegals put upon “socialized safety net of food stamps, medical care, and public schools.” Should the electorate, he asks, blame the illegals for the failure of these institutions? We should not deflect blame for the country’s institutional failure on powerless outsiders, Kenney argues. Read his full treatment here.

Kenney make some worthwhile theoretical points, but the fact is, Virginia has a social safety net and it has public schools. These institutions may be buckling and cracking, but there is no momentum whatsoever for changing them in any meaningful way. While it’s worthwhile for conservatives to question the underlying assumptions of our statist society, we are, as a practical matter, stuck with the welfare state and must work to make it functional. Consequently, we cannot ignore the implications of illegal immigration. If we can’t afford to educate and support our own citizens properly, we certainly can’t afford to educate and support non-citizens as well.

The blogger known as Scott offers an entirely different perspective — from the Green Party point of view. Several of his 11 key points seem entirely reasonable, a number are controversial, and one stands out as radical:

The Green Party calls for permanent border passes to all citizens of Mexico and Canada whose identity can be traced and verified. Work permits for citizens of Mexico and Canada must be easily obtainable, thereby decriminalizing the act of gainful employment. This action would help eliminate exploitation of undocumented persons by criminals engaged in human contraband (coyotes) and unethical employers. It would also help ensure that taxes will be paid in each corresponding nation per its laws. These measures will also help temporary residents from Mexico and Canada to secure driving privileges and liability insurance.

In effect, the Green Party would allow anyone from Mexico or Canada to work in the United States without fear of sanction. The Canadian standard of living is close enough to that of the U.S. that I’m not worried about an migratory flood from the Great White North, but such an open borders policy would unleash a flood of many millions more unskilled Mexicans searching for employment.

Scott wraps up his platform with this comment, “We oppose those who seek to divide us for political gain by raising ethnic and racial hatreds, and by blaming immigrants for social and economic problems. ” (You can read Scott’s complete remarks here ; scroll down to the fourth comment.)

I guess that last point is supposed to inoculate the Green Party from the negative impact that an influx of unskilled labor from Mexico would have on the wages and living standards of American citizens at the bottom of the skills-and-income ladder. The Green Party platform doesn’t acknowledge what its policy would do to the living standards of poor and working class Americans. Rather, it deftly turns the tables. By even mentioning the negative impact, I’m “raising ethnic and racial hatreds,” pitting working-class white and African-American citizens against the Mexicans. Pretty clever. And given the proclivity for many Democrats to shut down debate by crying “racism! racism! racism!” it just may work.

Bloggers can get results! Chad Dotson over at Commonwealth Conservative criticized the Tim Kaine campaign last week for posting an ad at the leftist “News Blog,” thus implicitly endorsing its contents — including a depiction of Maryland’s Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, an African American, as “Simple Sambo.” Dotson appealed to the Kaine campaign to denounce “this horrifying display of racism” and pull its ad.

In an update, Dotson reports that the Kaine team, to its credit, did pull the ad, calling the “Simple Sambo” post as “wholly inappopriate.”

The gubernatorial candidates aren’t talking about it. The press isn’t writing about it. But eminent domain is shaping up as the sleeper issue of the 2006 General Assembly session. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kelo vs. New London case, in which the Supremes expanded the definition of the “public purpose” justification for condemning someone’s property, the Virginia legislature is expected to enact legislation that will remedy the perceived excesses of the Court’s ruling.

Eminent domain is one of those topics that put most people to sleep — until it’s wielded against them. Then it can mean being evicted from their homes, or life and death for their businesses. As Peter Galuszka writes in an article commissioned for Bacon’s Rebellion:

Fears now abound in Virginia and nationally that eminent domain could be wielded by powerful economic interests for mostly private gain rather than for public good.

It’s a rare instance in which liberals and conservatives agree! But good-government pragmatists are worried. Placing drastic restrictions on the power of government to condemn land could put a crimp in the community revitalization projects that municipalities depend upon to shore up their tax bases.

Bacon’s Rebellion is proud to create a venue for the discussion of eminent domain at the “Public Private Partnership Forum” this Dec. 16-17, at the Virginia Crossings Resort north of Richmond. Sessions include:

• The Public Sector’s Responsibility to the Private Sector
• The Private Sector’s Responsibility to the Public
• Abuses and Successes of Eminent Domain Cases
• Economic Risk Considerations with Community Development
• The Eminent Domain Debate of Oceana Naval Air Station in Virginia Beach
• What’s on Virginia’s Political Horizon for Community Development, Eminent Domain and Transportation?

And more… To find out more about the conference, click here.

– sponsored content –

In the absence of good polling data, campaign contributions are one of the best gauges of voter sentiment. And the signs are favorable for Independent candidate Katherine Waddell, who is challenging incumbent Republican Brad Marrs for the 68th House of Delegates seat in Richmond. Marrs, as you will recall, distinguished himself this summer for the anti-gay rhetoric of one of his fund-raising letters. The Waddell campaign has repudiated social issues in favor of education, public safety, transportation and economic growth.

According to the Virginia Public Access Project, Waddell was matching Marrs almost dollar per dollar through Sept. 30: raising $192,000 compared to Marrs’ $194,000.

But it looks like Waddell must have surged ahead in October fund raising. According to Virginia FREE, which reports October numbers, Waddell ranked No. 20 — with $272,000 — on a list of the Top 20 fund raisers among all House candidates statewide. Marrs did not make that list.

Waddell’s platform is common-sense and middle-of-the-road for the most part. But one plank really bothers me. On transportation, she says: “Virginia cannot afford to wait any longer to fund a comprehensive long-term transportation plan that includes mass transportation as a major component.” Although she does not say so explicitly, I take that as an endorsement of the Business as Usual, tax-and-build approach to transportation that has gotten Virginia in the fix that it’s in. 68th District voters beware: There’s a good bet that Waddell, if elected, will vote to raise your taxes in 2006.

These numbers come from Virginia FREE:

Statewide Campaign Funding has eclipsed the $50 million mark:

GOVERNOR
Kaine for Governor (D) $18,402,021
Kilgore for Governor (R) $21,220,688
Potts for Governor (I) $1,279,268

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Bolling for Lieutenant Governor (R) $2,853,562
Byrne for Lieutenant Governor (D) $1,267,564

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Deeds for Attorney General (D) $2,543,255
McDonnell for Attorney General (R) $4,661,238
Total $52,227,596

Promising to crack down on illegal immigration, House Speaker William Howell and other senior Republicans announced a series of reforms two days ago such as ending in-state tuition rates for illegals at public colleges. Not rounding up the illegals and sending them home, mind you. Not denying them admittance to public universities. Just denying them the in-state rate reserved for legal residents of Virginia.

None of the House proposals struck me as “over the top.” (Read yesterday’s post here.) Of course, that may be because I’m one of those awful, bigoted “white males” the House leadership and Jerry Kilgore are pandering to in the hopes of motivating me to vote for Kilgore in the gubernatorial election.

Read the responses to my post. They’re more interesting than the post itself. What strikes me is that there is little effort to argue against the merits of the proposals themselves. The criticism of the House initiative varies in tenor but follows a common theme: The crackdown on illegal immigrants (illegal, mind you, not legal immigrants) is a nativist, if not downright racist, election gambit to rile up the white bubbas against the brown-skinned newcomers and get them to the polls on Tuesday.

Assuredly, there is an element of political calculation in the Kilgore campaign. Republicans have this funny thing about “law and order,” and Kilgore is appealing to it. But I have seen no evidence to suggest that the appeal of the illegal-immigration issue is an ethnic or racial one. If someone can present me evidence, then I will be all ears. But who needs evidence? Among many people, there is simply the presumption of racism. No evidence needed. Guilty until proven innocent, racist until proven otherwise.

The evidence that exists indicates that ethnicity and race are not behind the House legislative initiative. Speaker Howell couldn’t have been more clear in his speech in Springfield the other day: The issue is the rule of law, not ethnicity, race or immigration. “We are a nation of immigrants and better for it,” he said. “Our national character is not centered around any one religious denomination. Neither is it based upon any one ethnic group our race.” I could go on, as he did, but you get the message.

What the “racism, racism, racism” trope tells me is that those opposed to the Republican initiatives have nothing constructive to say on the subject. By labeling Republicans as nativists, racists and hypocrites, they are saying, in essence, that the Republican position is entirely irrational and that the problem of illegal immigration is a fabricated one. Yet that position is untenable. Even Tim Kaine concedes that illegal immigration is a problem. He just doesn’t want to do anything about it. He blames the federal government, and says the feds should solve it.

But illegal immigration is a unavoidably a state/local problem when illegal immigrants apply for food stamps, seek medical care and attend overcrowded, fiscally stressed schools. These problems cannot be fobbed onto the federal government. The problems are inherently local, and they’re real. They aren’t racist fantasies. And Virginia has to find a way to deal with them.

I don’t pretend to know the answers — the issues are complex. Illegal immigrants are embedded in our society, and they do play a significant role in our economy. I know a lot of immigrants, some of them probably illegal. Once you get to know someone as a person — with hopes and fears, children to care for, out-of-work relatives back in the old country, elderly parents who can’t afford health care — it’s hard to take the attitude, “ship ’em back home!” I’m not saying that the House came up with the right answers, but I do think they are tackling important issues — and I think it’s wrong to stigmatize those who would try to address those issues by characterizing them as racists.

It looks like the debate over illegal immigration is spilling out of the gubernatorial campaign. It’s not just Jerry Kilgore blasting illegal immigrants anymore. House Speaker William Howell, R-Stafford, Del. David Albo, R-Fairfax, and other Republican legislators held a press conference at an American Legion hall in Springfield yesterday to announce a broad-based crackdown on illegals:

• Require county-funded day labor centers to check for legal presence in Virginia.
• End in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens at Virginia public colleges and universities.
• Give local law enforcement the authority to detain and deport illegal aliens such as drug traffickers and violent gang members who have been charged with a separate crime.
• Stiffen penalties on the unlawful manufacture and use of birth certificates and drivers’ licenses for illicit purposes.
• Require the State Board of Elections to confirm if a voter is a citizen and remove illegal aliens from voter rolls.
• Establish sanctions for businesses in Virginia that knowingly hire illegal aliens, among others.

The Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. estimates that Virginia currently has approximately 200,000 illegal aliens – including a heavy concentration in the Northern
Virginia metropolitan region – which represents a tripling of that population since 1996. As Del. John S. “Jack” Reid (R-Henrico), put it, according to the Washington Post: “People who come here illegally and are not willing to go through the process [of becoming citizens] are not welcome, and I don’t want them here.”

Please note: The growing anti-illegal movement is not an anti-immigrant movement. No one is talking about undertaking measures against immigrants who have played by the rules. This is not an anti-Latino movement. This is a simply a movement that seeks to reclaim control over fundamental aspect of any nation state — the rights and obligations of non-citizens– that seems to be spinning out of control.

Is every idea proffered by the Republicans a good one? I don’t know. But the proposals seem worthy of debate. Let’s not shut off debate by accusing Howell & Co. of nativism, prejudice or negativism. Let’s have an honest and open discussion.

It’s encouraging to know that there are some outer boundaries of political correctness that even Virginia’s vanguard universities will not cross. In response to a National Collegiate Athletic Association initiative, the College of William & Mary has evaluated the use of the Native American logo and nickname — the Tribe — and concluded that they are not “hostile and abusive.”

President Gene Nichol appointed an evaluation committee, which gave the matter careful consideration. Not only does the term “Tribe” not violate NCAA standards, the moniker “communicates ennobling sentiments of commitment, shared idealism, community, and common cause,” Nichol wrote in a letter published on the W&M website. “My recent conversations with nearby Virginia Indian tribes have affirmed their acceptance of the nickname, which highlights, of course, the historical connection between the College and its role in educating Native Americans.”

One can never take for granted the triumph of common sense on a university campus. This is truly cause for celebration!

If a Virginia newspaper editor works for one candidate in a campaign, shouldn’t that newspaper publish the fact in their paper? Isn’t it unethical to not have full disclosure? Especially if the editor is one of their editorial page editors?

Conaway Haskins at South of the James has an interesting take on the gubernatorial race. Analyzing the three candidates based on their stances on 10 defining issues, he has compiled a Political Ideology Guide (PIG) that concludes the following:

• Russ Potts, a Republican, is the most liberal of the three.
• Jerry Kilgore is “solidly conservative.”
• Tim Kaine, though leaning liberal, can be fairly described as a “centrist.”

Read more at South of the James.

On November 8th, Virginia voters will choose the man who will be their lawyer for the next four years. The Virginia Attorney General is, in fact, the people’s lawyer: serving as our advocate on consumer matters; defending our decisions as jurors in criminal appeals; protecting our investments in charitable organizations and institutions; initiating and overseeing prosecution of government fraud and conflicts of interest; and advising the state officials and agencies who serve us.

Just as you choose carefully the lawyer who advises your business and your family, each Virginian should look carefully at the qualifications and stated priorities of the two candidates who seek election this year as Attorney General, and vote in November for the person you think would best serve you.

Senator Creigh Deeds (D Bath County) currently represents the people of the 25th district, stretching from Bath County to Charlottesville. He was the elected prosecutor of Bath County for four years before his election to the Virginia House of Delegates. He moved to the Senate in 2001, winning a special election for the seat left vacant by the death of Senator Emily Couric. Creigh Deeds says that as attorney general, “I will use my experience working across the aisle to make the office less political and improve the overall efficiency and responsiveness of our government. I will focus on the rights of those victimized by crime and respond to the surge of gang violence, illegal drug use, and domestic violence.” For more information visit his website, www.creighdeeds.com.

Delegate Robert F. McDonnell (R VA Beach) has represented the people of the 85th House district in Virginia Beach since 1992. Prior to being elected to the House of Delegates, he served as a prosecutor in the Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office. He is a retired Lt. Colonel who served in the Army for 21 years (active duty and reserves).
Bob McDonnell says that as attorney general he will protect children from violent sexual predators, fight the scourge of drugs and protect Virginians from terroristic threats. For more information visit his website, www.bobmcdonell.com.

Certainly, this information is helpful to those paying attention to this so-called “down ballot race.” Nonetheless, there is more that you need to know about these candidates beyond their carefully scripted, politically marketable platforms and platitudes to make an informed choice in November.

Here are some questions that you should be asking both candidates for Attorney General so that you can decide which man to “hire” as your lawyer when you enter the polling booth to vote on November 8th:

How will the candidates represent your interests as “consumer counsel?”

Under the Code of Virginia, the Attorney General is required to represent the “interests of the people as consumers.” What does this mean to the candidates for Attorney General? Will either of them take an active role in investigating and enforcing Virginia’s Consumer Protection Act?

When she was Attorney General, Mary Sue Terry helped reduce the costs to businesses and consumers of liability and workers’ compensation insurance at a time when premiums were rising and insurance was increasingly unavailable. She did this through legislation she advocated and through aggressive representation of consumers in insurance rate cases pending before the State Corporation Commission.

How will each of these candidates use his authority as Attorney General to represent Virginia consumers? Will he take action to address the malpractice insurance crisis, protect consumers from price gouging during the current gas crisis or prosecute those who deceive consumers by making false claims about their products or services; for example, those businesses who sell international drivers licenses falsely claiming that it is legal to drive in Virginia using such a document?

How will each candidate decide how money from settlements negotiated in consumer class action cases will be distributed?

With the exception of the tobacco settlement funds, the distribution of settlement proceeds from consumer lawsuits is completely within the discretion of the Attorney General pursuant to whatever agreement ending the lawsuit was approved by a court. Some past Attorneys General have distributed money from lawsuits in a manner designed principally to serve their political objectives. One Attorney General distributed money from the settlement of a price fixing lawsuit involving a woman’s shoemaker to so-called crisis pregnancy centers rather than in a manner more likely to benefit directly the consumers who had paid more for shoes because of the company’s anti-trust activities. Another made grants from settlement funds to health care institutions and organizations in jurisdictions that could be of strategic importance in a future campaign.

How will each candidate decide when to challenge or defend a law passed by the legislature, appeal a case or sign an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in a case pending in another jurisdiction?
I
n past administrations, Virginia Attorneys General, acting on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia (their ultimate client), have: 1) refused to defend the legislature’s decision to increase office allowances for members of the House and Senate (the legislature won); 2) defended at trial and on appeal a plainly unconstitutional statute passed by the legislature that sought to ban a particular abortion procedure (the so-called partial birth abortion bill); 3) filed lawsuits attacking the application of certain EPA rules and the federal Motor Voter Law to Virginia; and 4) authored or signed briefs that advocated severe limitations on the right of individuals to sue the state for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

What policy will this year’s candidates follow in making these kinds of decisions? Will their actions reflect their personal beliefs, those of their respective political parties or some other standard? Will they consult with the Governor before committing the people of the Commonwealth to a side in a legal dispute?

How will the candidates interpret the law in official opinions they write as Attorney General? Will the candidates be “activists” or “strict constructionists?

One of the important roles played by the Attorney General is quasi-judicial. The Attorney General is obligated by law to issue a formal opinion regarding how the law should be interpreted when asked by certain public officials. The questions asked each year cover far reaching issues from the legality of “pull tabs” in fraternal lodges to the right of localities to regulate shooting ranges to the right of citizens to distribute anonymous political leaflets.

An official opinion of the Attorney General is not the same as a court decision, but it is entitled to great deference by the courts. Once an Attorney General issues an opinion, the failure of the legislature to take action to override it by changing or clarifying the law is read by the courts as an indication that the legislature agrees with the Attorney General’s reading of the law.

Just as it is important to know how a judge will apply the law and what regard he or she will have for past decisions, it is important to know how a candidate for the office of Attorney General will approach this quasi-judicial opinion writing function.

One example illustrates well the power the Attorney General can wield through the opinion function. In 1962-63, in 1966-67 and in 1991, three Attorneys General had opined that it was unconstitutional under the Virginia Constitution for public school divisions to provide free bus service to students att
ending private religious schools. Each of these Attorneys General interpreted the Virginia Constitution as setting a stricter standard for the separation of church and state than is set by the First Amendment. This longstanding interpretation was never addressed by the Virginia legislature nor overturned by the Virginia courts. In 1995, stating simply that “I am of the opinion that these prior opinions do not accurately state the current law,” then Attorney General James Gilmore issued an opinion overruling the prior opinions and interpreting the law as permitting local school divisions to provide bus transportation to students attending private religious schools. Ironically, the 1995 busing opinion was requested by and issued to one of the candidates for Attorney General this year, Delegate Bob McDonnell.

Will the candidate be a good steward of your tax dollars?

The Attorney General of Virginia is the managing partner of a public law firm with almost 300 employees and a budget of more than $25 million — not including almost 60 additional lawyers paid for by various state agencies but supervised by the Attorney General, and the millions of dollars spent annually on outside counsel (private lawyers and law firms) who handle matters ranging from issuance of bonds to mundane collection work.

What steps will each candidate take to be sure that dollars spent on the state’s legal work are well invested and that the quality of representation provided to taxpayers is high? What will the candidates do to improve the state’s collection of debts owed and fines and penalties unpaid? How will each candidate account for the $9,000 a year that he will receive as Attorney General for expenses “not otherwise reimbursed?”

Will the candidate’s management practices as Attorney General reflect a commitment to full equality of opportunity at all levels?

Every employee of the Office of the Attorney General is an at will employee who serves at the pleasure of the lawyer elected by the people to serve as Attorney General. Will the candidate seek and hire employees based on merit? Will the candidate commit not to discriminate in employment based on race, national origin, gender, religion, disability, Veterans’ status, sexual orientation or gender identity? Will the candidate commit to ensure that the Office’s hiring and personnel practices reflect a commitment to merit over political affiliation and full equality of opportunity and compensation at all levels of employment? How will each candidate assure that the contracting and procurement practices of the Office of the Attorney General under his leadership assure that small, women and minority owned businesses get their fair share of the state dollars that the Office spends?

How the candidates for Attorney General answer these questions will reveal much about what kind of leader each will be in the role he is now seeking and more about what kind of leader he might be as Governor when he (inevitably, it seems) decides to move up in four years.

The Oct. 31, 2005, edition of Bacon’ s Rebellion has been published. You can read it online here.