For those of you still thinking about voting for Brian Moran, I strongly urge you to listen to his WTOP interview this past Friday with Mark Plotkin. To put it mildly, it's not pretty. In short: as long as Brian can stick with a talking point, he is fine. As soon as he is asked a follow-up question, however, he is lost (I actually felt sorry for him listening to this thing).On Marshall-Newman, for instance, Brian says he’s for repealing it but - in spite of his many years in the legislature - doesn't appear to know how to do that. Specifically, Moran misstates the process for amending the Virginia Constitution. Moran appears to think that the vote has to take place two calendar years in a row, perhaps because that is how it happened to work out for the Marshall-Newman amendment. However, the Virginia Constitution actually requires an intervening House of Delegates election between legislature votes. In enacting Marshall-Newman, the sequence went like this:
2005 Session: first vote to put amendment on the ballot
November 2005 – House of Delegates election
2006 Session – second vote to put amendment on the ballot
2006 Election – vote to approve Marshall-Newman
So, even though Moran got the process wrong (it's not "two consecutive years," it's two consecutive legislative session with an intervening House of Delegates election), technically he got it right that the amendment could be overturned (by another amendment) in four years. Of course, this assumes that the votes would be there to do such a thing, which they most certainly will not be (it's not even close in the House of Delegate, probably not in the State Senate either) barring a miracle. In this case, the sequence would go:
2010 Session - first vote to repeal Marshall-Newman (which absolutely positively won't happen, unless progressive Demorats take over the General Assembly this year, but this is how it would go)
2011 – Intervening HoD election
2012 Session – second vote to repeal Marshall-Newman (also extremely unlikely, barring a progressive Democratic majority in both Houses of the General Assembly by then)
2012 Election – vote by Virginians to accept or reject the amendment
In other words, this process - assuming all of the above took place, which it absolutely, positively, 100% certainly will not - would stretch from 2010 through 2012, when the issue of gay marriage would once again be on the ballot in Virginia. Again, I can't stress this enough (and it pains me to say it, because I very much wish it would), but this is not going to happen. Given that fact, for a gubernatorial candidate to pledge that he will spend significant time and political capital over the next four years on repealing Marshall-Newman is simply foolish. Or naive. Or something.
The bottom line is that either Brian Moran hasn’t really thought this one through, or he has thought it through and is simply pandering to Democratic primary voters who hate Marshall-Newman (again, I put myself strongly in that camp, and look forward to the day when we get this abomination out of George Mason's constitution; but it won't be in the next 4 years, that's a certainty no matter who the governor happens to be).
By the way, at the William and Mary debate, where the issue was first raised, Terry McAuliffe got this procedure exactly right in explaining why he would not burn time on it. Here's what Terry said at that debate:
In order to change it here, you know, it has to pass two sessions of the legislature with an election in between. That's a hard thing to try to get done. Let's deal with the reality of what we have to do. I've always been for contractual rights for all individuals. We should not have any discrimination against anyone. I've said that as chairman of the party, and in all the things I have fought for. I believe when it relates to gay marriage, it's a religious issue, and we ought to treat it as a religious issue. To think that I can actually change it, to go and try to deal with a constitutional amendment with what we need to do, that's not going to happen because as I said you have to have two votes in the General Assembly with an intervening election.Exactly right. Which is what makes Brian's rude, condescending comment to Terry in the Annandale debate - "I don't have time to teach you the legislative process, nor do Virginians have time for you to learn" - so insufferable. It's also what makes Brian's inability to explain this properly on Mark Plotkin's show this past Friday so (unintentionally) hilarious. As it turns out, Terry McAuliffe - the one who hasn't spent half his adult life in Richmond - understands the process of amending the Virginia constitution better than Brian Moran does, at least as evidenced by their statements on Marshall-Newman.
On another subject, listen to Plotkin ask Moran about campaign finance reform. First, Moran says, sure, let's have limits. Then Moran is asked what those limits should be, and it's obvious he doesn’t know what he is talking about. So, Moran backtracks to explaining how the system is based on disclosure (but he seems to say "foreclosure"). Ee gads.
Then there's the Wise County coal-fired power plant issue. Once again, in addition to constantly trying to change the subject - to the proposed Surry County plant, which is not a Dominion Power plant, and away from Dominion's Wise County station, currently under construction, Moran misstates his vote on this subject, claiming that it was only to use "Virginia coal." Sorry, but that's simply not true. In fact, here is the real story: a vote for "a coal-fired generation facility that utilizes Virginia coal and is located in the coalfield region of the Commonwealth." Gee, I wonder what that plant could be. Ha. But seriously, if there's any doubt what the intent was here, see Dominion Power's take on it, which is "Dominion supported SB 651: Includes new coal-fired power station in southwest Virginia" Is that clear enough? If not, how about Brian Moran's own statement on April 19 that he did not regret his vote for the Wise County coal-fired power plant? Case closed on that one.
The interview goes on and on like that, with another awkward moment coming when a caller (who says he's a Democrat and a "fan of Brian Moran's") blasts Brian for the "negative things he's said about some of his opponents" and "outright negative attacks by his campaign" Brian responds by (completely implausibly) claiming, "I'm not familiar with what you're referring to" (and rambles about his endorsements and voting record). Mark Plotkin then cuts in, saying:
...but you have paid for TV and radio ads which talk about one of your opponents, Terry McAuliffe. I've been to debates, yyou've been the most fierce against him. And, are you worried that by attacking him, first of all if he should be the nominee you irreparably damage his candidacy in the general and also that people will say a pox on Moran and McAuliffe...I'm gonna vote for Deeds?On and on it goes. As I said, it's not pretty.
Posts
Just like Terry attempted to pay off (bribe) Ralph Nader not to help Bush and stroke his own ego, it's obvious (to some Moran supporters still in denial about polls, Brian's inability to raise funds and Brian's lack of a coherent message/campaign) that Terry "MUST" have paid off Plotkin to, well, ask "unfair" questions that weren't in Brian's script.
ReplyDeleteIs Brian a Dubya clone, unable or unwilling to actually READ the Va. Constitution, or unable to understand it if he did ? Or, are all the unfounded personal attacks with no facts to back them up an indication that fiction is better than fact if your campaign strategy has been the Carl Rove playbook ?
I definitely don't agree on Terry's analysis of political spending political capital to make this happen. If that were a case no tough battles would be fought.
ReplyDeleteThe process will be long and drawn out, but that doesn't mean it's not worth the fight.
I think it's pretty brave and gutsy for Moran to step up and make this an issue in a state that's shown it prefers the opposite. In the general it'll definitely be brought up against him.
I respect candidates who take the unpopular but right positions.
As governor with only 4 years to tackle the economy, transportation, and other tough issues, you've got to pick and choose your battles. This one is hopeless until we get a General Assembly controlled by legislators who will vote to put a new constitutional amendment on the ballot. Right now, and probably for years to come (unfortunately), we're not even close.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't mean you don't try. Hopefully, what he would do would set up the next Governor to finish the job. Not doing anything only delays this injustice from being overturned.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely "try," but the way I'd "try" is by winning back the House of Delegates, then by getting more progressives in there. It will probably take a few cycles...
ReplyDeleteI really liked this post for detailing an issue I was interested in, but I also really hated it because it disturbed me from weakly settling on Moran to once again not feeling entirely comfortable with anyone. Harumph.
ReplyDeleteI'm new to this whole political blogging scene, but being forced to research people to be able to write about them is pretty eye-opening, even if I'm not very good at it yet. I'll have to look at what you've said about McAuliffe since you seem to like him so well.
I agree winning back the House is key, but doesn't that make the case Moran IS the right person for the Governor's job. They seemed to be doing pretty well in gaining seats under his leadership. Going against the national trend of Democrats were losing seats.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather vote for the naive fool that wants to work to change the CW on this issue than the dude that insults me and my intelligence by saying that "I believe when it relates to gay marriage, it's a religious issue, and we ought to treat it as a religious issue." Actually, no, it's not a religious issue AT ALL. It's an issue of civil rights -- and it's stunning to me that you've become so enmeshed in team Terry that you'd try and spin it this way. Really bad.
ReplyDeleteI see the attack machine has been fired up again.
ReplyDeleteWhat's really interesting in this interview is Moran pretending that he isn't running negative ads. When asked, Moran says "I don't know what you're referring to." Interesting.
Ron - It has nothing to do with "team Terry" or your being "disappointed," it has to do with facts and reality (in this case, of how you amend Virginia's constitution). Work to win back the House of Delegates, accomplish that goal, THEN we can start talking about an effort to repeal Marshall-Newman. Until then, it's all just political hot air and pandering by a candidate (Brian Moran) who is trying desperately to win an election. Are YOU so "enmeshed in team Brian" that you can't see that?!?
ReplyDeleteLowell, here's the deal. And I've been saying this consistently the whole primary, even after I decided to back and vote for Brian. There isn't one perfect candidate in the bunch. For as much as I like Brian, he is a flawed candidate. He's not always great on the stump, he doesn't make the most coherent arguments -- I actually agree with aznew's critique that he's been too handled. They haven't run a great campaign by any means -- relying on endorsements is pretty silly in this day and age if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteBut I've been really disappointed by the lack of intellectual honesty from the folks on the Terry side of the ledger (and, just to be clear, I wasn't trying to insinuate that your a paid supporter or any such thing -- I'm on 'Team Brian', and haven't received a dime, though I might be getting paid a little for some GoTV stuff) on a number of issues. I mean, the quote is right there -- Terry McAuliffe thinks this is a religious issue, not an issue of civil rights. He's not going to go to bat for me on this issue, an issue that's very personal to me. Now, I'm not a naif -- of course the mechanics of this are against reversal any time soon, and yeah probably not in the next gubernatorial term. I don't care -- I want the guy at least willing to stand up for my civil rights. And if he tacks back toward the middle after the primary (should he win) and decides to conveniently forget this issue, I'll give him hell.
But how in the hell is staking out a position (with perhaps not a perfect record backing it up, but a mostly consistent legislative voting record) on an issue of civil rights 'pandering'?!? It's a primary -- one of the most important effects of a primary is it causes politicians to in fact stake out positions that they otherwise might not because their consultants don't want them to make too many promises. It's the antidote to mealy-mouthed political tripe we normally get fed. So, if Moran is pandering on this issue, is Terry pandering on his environmental plan or his job plan? Because, last time I checked, he'll also need a Democratic HoD to get those proposals passed in their current form.
On this issue now, and on Terry's fundraising with the kings of influence peddling, and on the fact that Terry at the DNC invested basically zero dollars in Virginia (it took Howard Dean to do that) -- anytime a supporter of Brian or Creigh brings it up, we're accused of negativity. And it strikes me as intellectually dishonest.
I've been out talking to voters and id'ing voters and trying to win as many votes for Brian as I can. And I'll shake any other Democrat's hand on 6/10 that wants to work for our candidate and to defeat Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling, and Looney Tunes Cuccinelli.
But it would be nice to see some ability from Team Terry to occasionally notice a meaningful difference and not portray it as something venal or superfluous. And there's a clear difference here.
It's "pandering" because of three main reasons:
ReplyDelete1. See here: "Moran cast a vote in favor of a resolution sponsored by now Republican nominee Bob McDonnell that encouraged the U.S. Congress to adopt an amendment to the federal constitution banning both gay marriages and civil unions." Absolutely horrible. What the hell?!?
2. Moran also said he was "uncomfortable with the state recognizing a gay marriage," and continues to oppose gay marriage to this very day. Don't believe me? Ask him.
3. Moran knows d**n well, or certainly should know, that it will require two separate General Assemblies to pass a new amendment overturning Marshall-Newman, and that this is extremely unlikely to happen for several more years at least. So what the heck is he talking about? What does he think the governor can do about this exactly? Does he simply not understand how the process works, or is he "pandering" to voters? You decide.
P.S. As for Terry, as DNC chair he invested a great deal of money in Tim Kaine's 2005 candidacy. Also, in 2001 (per Terry's website) "when Mark Warner ran for Governor, the DNC gave $1.5 million to support Virginia Democrats up and down the ticket."
Okay, never mind then. I see we're in deep-in-the-trenches-mode here, so there won't be any blinders off kind of thinking. I guess that's how it goes.
ReplyDeleteI could care less than Brian isn't 100% to where I am on this issue, since at least he's willing to talk about the issue instead of just batting it aside. And he showed some cowardice (or at least expedience) by voting on all sides of the issue in 2004. But if he had one bad vote but wants to spend political capital to have the freaking discussion, I'm still on his side, because that's better than what the other guys will do on this issue (which is to say, nothing). Changing minds requires a leader willing to lead on an issue, not ignore it -- maybe even a leader that realizes he made some mistakes on the issue along the way. And that's a good start. But I guess that's pandering.
I guess it'll all be over a week from tomorrow, then we can move forward. Talk to you then.
Wow, you really don't care that Brian STILL doesn't support gay marriage? OK, I guess you're right, we'll talk after June 9.
ReplyDeleteI thought I explained it -- I'm happy he's willing to talk about the issue of marriage rights in Virginia, instead of just batting it away.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I think we'll need a federal law to require gay marriage rights in all 50 states (the inverse of DOMA) -- and the 14th Amendment gives the US Congress the plenary power to do so. And I don't expect that'll be coming down the pike 'til at least 15 more (or different) Democratic Senators and near the very end of Obama's second term.
I'm not covering my eyes by any means, but why should I support a candidate that thinks it's not even worth talking about?
You should support Terry McAuliffe because he gives us a MUCH better chance than Brian does of taking back the House of Delegates and actually getting the heinous Marshall-Newman repealed.
ReplyDeleteThat's a decent argument, but how so? I'm a BIG believer in field, field, field wins elections. Big $$ and TV advertising wins you squat when it comes to delegate races, IMO.
ReplyDeleteI have seen zero field presence for Team McAuliffe in Alexandria. Zero. There's some phoning going on, but phoning is much less effective. Now, this is Team Moran's home base, so if they're prioritizing elsewhere, I understand.
I think we take back the HoD regardless of who is at the top of our ticket, though the margin will matter.
Ron: Even Tim Kaine, ever the optimist, said a while back that he only believes we have a 40% chance of taking back the HoD this year. I'd say more like 10%, maybe 25% if we nominate Terry and he does what he's promised to do, which is to "run a coordinated campaign the likes of which you've never seen in Virginia."
ReplyDeleteDon't need a coordinated campaign, we need grassroots organizing in 15 to 20 districts. Pretty doable in my mind, but it's not supposed to be easy. Money is great, but it takes neighbors talking to neighbors that makes the difference.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree that we don't need a coordinated campaign, but something tells me that if Terry said the sun rose in the morning, you'd say "not necessarily!" :)
ReplyDeleteI think it's great that he's talking about one, but coordinated campaigns get their money from the top of the ticket guys, and thus are almost always de facto field operations for the big guns. Last year, Warner's field folks ended up being transferred over to the Obama ledger because, well, Mark Warner is God :) ... but that normally doesn't happen.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying the idea isn't good, just that I've yet to see a good coordinated campaign.
And I actually think it's great that Terry is talking so much about the HoD races and trying to get as much money for them as possible. I'm just not of the mind that the money is the most important factor in terms of winning those races.