Kaine’s Diminished Credibility — a Telling Quote

Gov. Tim Kaine may be furious that the House GOP nixed his nomination of Daniel LeBlanc to Secretary of Commonwealth, but he has himself to thank: Having broken two major campaign promises relating to transportation, he doesn’t have much credibility when he says that he will protect Virginia’s Right to Work law. (I’ve discussed Kaine’s broken promises over on the Road to Ruin blog.)

In a quote buried deep in a Virginian-Pilot pilot story today, House Majority Leader Del. Morgan Griffith calls Kaine’s credibility into question:

Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said he did not trust Kaine’s pledge to uphold the right-to-work law. He said Kaine already has broken a campaign pledge not to seek tax increases until he won passage of a constitutional amendment that would protect transportation money from being diverted to other services.

“If he doesn’t keep one promise, how can you expect him to keep a promise to protect the right-to-work law?” Griffith said.

Breaking promises has consequences. Even if the press doesn’t call you on it, the political opposition will. Kaine has some major repair work to do.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


13 responses to “Kaine’s Diminished Credibility — a Telling Quote”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Pathetic rationalisation. Truly pathetic. It was raw political power, a sop to the far right wing of the Republican Party, and all the excuses or efforts to blame it on something else fall flat.

    The right to work issue is a red herring (classic one, at that.) Any effort to weaken it would fail miserably. It is Polar Bear insurance (see how well it worked? Not a single Polar Bear in Virginia.)

    If the problem was Leighty’s big mouth, don’t confirm Leighty.

    If you don’t trust the governor on transportation, kill his package (which they did.)

    No, this is what it was — raw political retribution — and the price will be high. It will be paid in full probably by some future REPUBLICAN governor.

  2. kingfish Avatar

    I’m afraid I must agree with Anon. The House majority has demonstrated no willingness to accomodate any other point of view. The public does and will continue to see them as petty and vindictive. Whatever policy reasons motivate them on big issues are lost to the public, which can easily get their arms around which group of people are acting like spoiled children. Sadly, I think nothing gets done until the House is cleaned out. I hope I’m wrong.

  3. Rtwng Extrmst Avatar
    Rtwng Extrmst

    Or perhaps until the Senate is cleaned out.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    The House’s action on LeBlanc was the kiss of death for the Republican majority.

    Jim is right. This was a major tactical error.

    What’s next, blocking the transportation package?

    See you at the polls.

  5. Tom James (aka Brave Hart) Avatar
    Tom James (aka Brave Hart)

    Or as us country folk say: they cut off nose to spite face!

  6. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    Great comment, Jim. Ideas have consequences. ‘Course, in the words of Anon 12:44, that, too, is “a red herring (classic one, at that).” And also of course, what the far Left depends upon to achieve its ends is indifference. Indifference to a radical like LeBlanc endangers the Right to Work law. He should therefore have been defeated.

  7. Anonymous Avatar

    Right to work: What does that mean?

    If you have an election and the majority of workers casting a vote happen to vote against union representation, then NO ONE in the workplace gets union representation. The folks who voted for union representation don’t get union representation while the rest go about their business. Fair enough – this is democracy.

    If on the other hand, a majority votes to have union representation, then the union represents all of them but anybody who wants to can back out and say, “Hey not me. I won’t be a part of this and help pay for it” and still get benefit of union representation but can pay zero.

    We live in a western democracy, folks. I have to pay my taxes whether or not my side wins and whether or not I approve of how they get spent. Right to work is a rip-off.

  8. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Anon: The tyranny of the majority in a democracy (we live in a Republic) imposes its will on individuals. Involuntary association, dues, etc is not far from involuntary servitude. That’s some of why Right to Work is important for individual rights.

  9. criticallythinking Avatar

    If he wasn’t going to get slapped for proposing a billion-dollar tax increase when he promised not to, and for leaving good men like Marshall hanging out to dry when they tried to actually advance his land use legislation —

    Kaine was certainly going to get slapped for his threat to run campaigns against republicans who opposed his tax increase.

    Why didn’t he threaten to run campaigns against the democrats who oppose his land use bill, which was actually a campaign promise?

    Remember when Clinton got elected in 1992, and a few weeks later lamented that “he had worked harder than he ever had in his life”, but couldn’t give us a $500 child tax credit?

    Kaine is no Bill Clinton, and today’s vote was a not-so-gentle reminder that you don’t give a state of the union response touting your “bipartisan approach”, and then launch an all-out attack on the other party when they try to help you uphold your campaign promises.

  10. Anonymous Avatar

    I agree with what you say, Mr. Bowden, up to a point. However, if it’s the “tyranny of the majority” that you fear, when a union vote goes against union representation, why do we not let the minority that voted for the union have union representation, pay dues, etc? Why deny them their right of “association”?

    I personally believe an up or down vote is fair, but not if a no vote means no union representation for anyone, including those who voted for it; but a yes vote means everybody does what he chooses.

    And you are correct, we live in a Republic. We elect legislators to make laws. Still everyone who is eligible to vote can vote for these legislators. When the voting is over, the person with the higher vote wins, period. The losers don’t get to send their choice to DC (or Richmond)along with the representative of the winners.

  11. Madisonian Avatar

    I apologize for the length of this comment, but I felt like a reprint might help some understand exactly what a “right-to-work” law means. As you’ll see, it really only means employers may neither require, nor prevent, union membership as a condition of employment, either on their own or as part of a collective bargaining agreement.
    Hate to let facts get in the way of a good argument.
    § 40.1-60. Employers not to require employees to become or remain members of union. — No person shall be required by an employer to become or remain a member of any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employment by such employer. (Enacted 1947; amended 1970.)

    § 40.1-61. Employers not to require abstention from membership in union. — No person shall be required by an employer to abstain or refrain from membership in any labor union or labor organization as a condition of employment or continuation of employ- ment. (Enacted 1947; amended 1970.)

    § 40.1-62. Employer not to require payment of union dues, etc. — No employer shall require any person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to pay any dues, fees or other charges of any kind to any labor union or labor organization. (Enacted 1947; amended 1970.)

  12. James Young Avatar
    James Young

    The reason you have union representation of all with a majority vote and union representation of none with a union’s loss, Anon 8:35, is monopoly representation, a privilege for which union bosses lobbied in 1935 (Wagner Act) and which they jealously guard to date. The reason? Power.

    Don’t complain to me or anyone else knowledgeable about this issue until the union bosses from whose website you got the talking points lobby Congress for repeal of monopoly bargaining. Union bosses who complain about people who they represent but who don’t pay dues are like farmers who buy a horse, and complain about the price of oats. Or Porsche owners who complain about the price of high-octane fuel.

    But you probably knew that.

    A rip-off? Hardly. Right to Work merely insures that the insult of paying forced dues is not added to the injury of having your right to bargain for yourself taken away.

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    Did anyone see this Dave Albo?

Leave a Reply