No Comment or Not Asked?

Today’s Daily Press has another scathing editorial on the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries scandal. It seems that everyone who is anyone has commented on the state auditor’s findings.

Except the Governor. Except the three gubernatorial candidates. Except the six Lt. Gov. candidates. Except the three Attorney General candidates. I suppose the current Attorney General has commented, according to the editorial: “A spokesman for the attorney general says she plans no action.”

If anyone has seen comments from the group I mentioned, let me know and I will correct the record. Are they saying “no comment” or have they even been asked? I know the opinions of candidates on a host of issues where as officeholders they would have only marginal influence; I’d like to know their opinions on something that they would confront directly if they were elected.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


  1. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    The Dems don’t want to comment because they don’t want to disrespect the Governor. What can they say? … I’m mildly surprised the Republicans haven’t had something to say — this is the perfect opportunity to take a cheap shot. But there’s really not much to say. It looks like the Warner administration acted quickly and forcefully to deal with the situation, even though it meant embarrassing Dan Hoffler, a big campaign contributor. Furthermore, the Warner team has run a pretty clean show. This is the first scandal of any magnitude. It’s not as if this were indicative of some deeper rot in the administration.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    I would add further that there’s really only one policy issue at stake here: whether to pursue Tayloe Murphy’s recommendation to have the director appointed by the governor rather than by the board. It’s not the kind of thing that gets peoples’ political juices flowing.

  3. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    First off, I’m surprised no reporters seem to have even asked any questions of the Governor or the candidates. Second, I would hope that Republicans, if asked and responding, wouldn’t take a cheap shot.

    It just seems to me that candidates ought to be confronted with state agency malfeasance (mild as it is) so that they can go on record as saying something appropriate about how they would endeavor to avoid that sort of thing.

    Signing on to Murphy’s proposal would be a bonus, but I suspect candidates are afraid of inflaming the “hunting lobby,” however preposterous that seems. The hunting lobby isn’t in favor of accountability?

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    “Signing on to Murphy’s proposal would be a bonus, but I suspect candidates are afraid of inflaming the “hunting lobby,” however preposterous that seems. The hunting lobby isn’t in favor of accountability?”

    Some of it is. The virginia Huntinf Dog Owners’ Association asked all statewide candidates to answer several policy question last month, including the folowing:

    Sportsmen fund Virginia’s Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ entire budget. Recent actions of DGIF’s management have cost it the support of many outdoorsmen. In your view, what needs to be done to restore those constituents’ support? Was the Board Chairman’s resignation sufficient? What are the respective responsibilities of the Executive branch and General Assembly in instances of agency misfeasance?

    Detailed response are confidential, per agreement.

    Bob Kane, President
    Virginia Hunting Dog Owners’ Association

  5. Will Vehrs Avatar
    Will Vehrs

    I’m certainly glad the candidates were asked the questions and answered them for this organization. I would hope the candidates would share their positions more broadly.

Leave a Reply