Let’s get this straight:  a combat veteran and successful prosecutor wanted to be a judge.  He had broad bipartisan support.  Virginia is the birthplace of the freedom of speech and the freedom of association — absolute freedoms that go to the heart of our God-given liberties and our stature as a land of limitless potential.

But then the fact that he’d spoken out against the  Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy — which was later democratically struck down by Congress — became cause to vote against him as a district judge.

Not only that, but the floor speeches in Richmond were filled with animus and mockery, falling far short of the level we should expect in Virginia.

A district court judge in Richmond will have virtually nothing to do with any federal policy matters or, really, controversial social matters.

This was an instance of a political take-down — a political rejoinder where this nominee became a pawn in a broader fight.

What a shame.

As with all unfortunate situations, it bears reviewing how we got to this point and what could potentially be done to prevent it from happening again in the future. First there was the proposal to sell the naming rights to roads and bridges throughout Virginia as a way of generating extra revenue. This of course fell woefully short of what would be necessary to adequately fund all of Virginia’s transportation needs. For some time it appeared as though this would be the only solution to come out of Richmond. Then came devolution. The seemingly revolutionary idea of letting the localities handle transportation issues on their own amounted to nothing more than an attempt by the state government to abdicate its responsibilities, effectively passing the buck to the localities without providing any assistance in terms of helping to pay for the costs.

Devolution’s time in the spotlight was short-lived and soon enough we were back to square one. Firmly entrenched it would seem, with the passage of the state budget including the old proposition of selling naming rights. What’s worse, we have seen no movement from the Governor with regards to taking a principled stand when it comes to transportation, an issue he promised to seriously address while campaigning. Indeed, the only campaigning that seems to have taken place in Richmond has been that of Republicans against ancient enemies in the realm of social issues. These agendas have even spilled over into non-germane areas, most recently exhibited by the Administration’s refusal to provide the $150 million it is bound to provide for the Dulles Rail project over a disagreement over the use of unionized labor for the project. Three years after Governor McDonnell took office, there is still no sign of finding a dedicated funding source for transportation.

This represents a huge failure of leadership on the part of the Governor, who cast himself as a moderate but lately seems content to ally himself with the extreme right. We saw this earlier in the year when he failed to stop Republicans in the General Assembly from carrying out their absurd agenda focused on social issues rather than creating jobs and growing Virginia’s economy. We are seeing it again now with regards to transportation. Instead of putting forward a serious plan to address the growing gap between funding for transportation and the actual demands of the state, in which no option was off the table (this includes tax increases), the Governor and the rest of the Republican Party seem content to put forward the same used-up ideas and hope that no one notices. They are in for a rude shock next year should this behavior continue. Virginia needs and deserves better from its elected leaders.

——-

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of members of the NDP Steering Committee.

The same is true for the opposite side as well.  Bob McDonnell is actively positioning himself for the Republican vice-presidential nomination.  Perhaps with a little too much saliva — I really have never seen anything like his expensive new TV commercials that seek to re-brand himself before his own constituents as a successful governor.  Usually, for governors, actions speak for themselves — not advertising and PR campaigns paid for by your donors.

But actions are louder  than words, none more so than the decision McDonnell faces soon about whether to veto the bill passed by the farthest-right of his legislative colleagues to require IDs from anyone voting.  The bill is an affront to our democratic aspirations on several fronts.  First, it’s plainly political, promising to specifically impact several thousand young, minority, and aged voters who will largely vote Democratic because of their relationship to our policies, and offered in a year when the thinnest of margins could turn Virginia red.

Second, it creates a barrier between a potential voter and the voting booth.  The bill’s sponsors claim not to understand the lives of people who lack government-issued IDs or the means to access them, but they exist, and there are thousands of them.

Third, it violates the simplest of principles, which is that democratic rights should expand rather than constrict over time.  I remember so clearly one time when I was in Richmond with the New Electoral Reform Alliance for Virginia advocating for a bill we had helped introduce with the help of several legislators to remove excuses for absentee voting and establish an early voting system in Virginia.  One Republican legislator looked at us straight in the face and said she thought voting should be harder, that people should have to reorganize their lives to vote on a Tuesday before 7 p.m.  She was essentially saying that voting was a privilege, not a right.  It was a fundamental, philosophical difference.

All this now comes to Bob McDonnell’s doorstep, and several things hinge on it.  First, his legacy — does he want to be remembered for ushering in a newly restrictive chapter in Virginia’s democratic story?  The Obama Department of Justice will almost certainly take action against the bill if he does sign it, and he will likely lose both substantive battles in court as well as the broader public opinion battle.  Second, his VP chances.  Clearly, some Republicans want McDonnell to stand by party, sign the bill, and deliver the margin for victory it promises, but does he want to create a controversy around himself as Mitt Romney’s potential VP?

For an example, see today’s excellent editorial in the Washington Post:

Faced with voter ID legislation that would disenfranchise thousands of Virginians, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is in a quandary. He can veto the bill and incur the wrath of fellow Republicans, or sign it and reinforce the GOP’s image of hostility toward young, poor and black voters.

Mr. McDonnell is all too aware that the bill, passed by Republican lawmakers despite his warning about legislative overreach, is gratuitous at best. That’s why he sent it back to the General Assembly with amendments that would eliminate its most obnoxious feature: a requirement that ballots cast by voters who lack identification be thrown out unless the voters make a separate trek to local electoral offices to prove their identity.

It’s unclear what he’ll do, but if there’s ever a time when loud voices can make a difference, it might be now — particularly those who argue from democratic principle, illuminating the shadow this bill will cast not only over Virginia, but over McDonnell’s legacy.

Since the 1970s, the City of Virginia Beach has repeatedly talked about getting a light rail. However, year after year, the City’s residents have said no (most recently in 1999). But, now, given the City’s current transportation infrastructure and our economic climate, is the time for a change.

With consistently clogged roads, gas at over $4 a gallon, and a growing population, a light rail that extends beyond Norfolk (the current rail system ends at the western border of Virginia Beach) and into the Beach is both reasonable and economically sound.

For starters, the City already owns the old Norfolk-Southern rail line which cuts across Virginia Beach. This abandoned rail line can easily be converted for light rail use. Moreover, the Hampton Roads Transit Authority has allocated $30 million for the next phase of the line – ostensibly for the line’s extension into Virginia Beach. This money, though, will be diverted elsewhere in the next two years if Virginia Beach decides to act later rather than sooner. Also, while there is little money for highway and roadway improvements, but large sums for light rail construction, there are fiscal reasons to build, too. Not only is the money there, but the federal government especially is happy to give it out!

Additionally, we know (as I wrote in an earlier blog post) about the success the Tide has achieved thus far. With thousands of riders riding the Tide each day, people already recognize that the Tide is a wise transportation alternative. In fact, there are talks that the Tide will expand to one of the region’s largest employers – Norfolk Naval Station. This extension, though in the opposite direction, will surely relieve transportation burdens affecting the region’s roadways.

Economically, the Tide also carries with it a strong precedent of development. For instance, Norfolk has seen a $900 million growth in development (namely, in apartment dwellings) near and along the line. If Virginia Beach were to do the same, development would surely emerge rapidly.

Overall, there is a strong contention for light rail in Virginia Beach. Aside from the fear that the light rail would make Norfolk and Virginia more interconnected – a fact some in Virginia Beach loathe – the economic and practical benefits of this new transportation alternative are too big to bypass.

With that said, Virginia Beach residents control their destiny. If the Tide is to expand, they need to vote this November, when residents will be able to vote for whether the city: ” [should support] the financing and development of The Tide Light Rail into Virginia Beach.”

It is common to see across South Hampton Roads, in an example of patriotism, bumper stickers saying “United We Stand, Divided We Fall.” While this obviously refers to our nation’s post-9/11 unity, it can and should also refer to the Tidewater region as a whole. If our localities refuse to cooperate with one another and instead isolate themselves, amidst strong economic and practical arguments to the contrary, we perhaps may eventually fall.

This is something Beach residents must realize now and must act to reverse.

—–

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of members of the NDP Steering Committee.

This is not to say that any mass-transit project should automatically be funded without and observation and analysis of the costs and benefits. The Loudoun board is well within their rights to ask for more time to do just that. However, the McDonnell Administration has shown no interest in conducting any kind of measured analysis and instead has jeopardized the state government’s portion of the funding over a dispute over unionized labor.

This is hardly an example of the pro-business, pro-growth attitude the Governor claims to have. Indeed, every major business in northern Virginia, as well as the local Chamber of Commerce, supports the project. What surreal world have we entered where the Republican Party and the Chamber of Commerce are at odds on an issue?

Enough is enough. The United States is the only member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that does not possess a rail link between its capital city and the capital’s major international airport.

The Dulles Toll Road corridor is among the busiest road corridors in the region and suffers from the traffic congestion that such status brings. When the Metro system was originally constructed in the 1970s, it brought economic development to the entire region and the Silver Line will do the same to the areas of northern Virginia it will pass through. Given that these areas are already seen as commercial and business epicenters, further economic development can only bring additional benefits to the region as a whole.

It is true that the costs to make this project a reality are high and have been higher than previously estimated. The issue of the MWAA funding the majority of the project through toll revenue from the Dulles Toll Road remains something to keep a watchful eye on.

While a slight increase in tolls is necessary to provide adequate funding to meet the MWAA’s obligations, they cannot be allowed to spiral out of control to the higher levels that some are suggesting are inevitable. Ironically, it is the refusal of the state government down in Richmond to supply its own dedicated funding that is making the issue of sky-high tolls more and more likely. However, we cannot afford to be intimidated by sticker shock in this case.

While the short-term costs will be high, the long-term benefits are what our leaders in government must keep their focus on. And those benefits will be many, not the least of which will be the furthering of mixed-use and transit-oriented development along the 267 Corridor. Further mixed-use development would bring increased tax revenue to northern Virginia, both in the form of commercial taxes through new businesses and property taxes as the value of the land in the corridor increases.

All of this would add even more potential to an already impressive economy, leading to the opportunity for more revenue in the budget, translating in turn to more funds for appropriation for Fairfax and Loudoun County and by association, the Commonwealth as well.

If the region is to fully recover from the effects of the recent downturn, it must do whatever it can to make sure that the full weight of these benefits is realized. The completion of this project would do a great deal to fulfill that end.

——-

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of members of the NDP Steering Committee.

Hence the extraordinary email he sent yesterday.  I’m pasting it in full below.  In the email, Tim carefully works through an outrageous, Karl Rove-type attack that the George Allen campaign has been launching recently, asserting that because Kaine has worked with President Obama, that he’s not on the side of Virginia.  We’ve grown accustomed to this sort of blunderbuss politics, and it’s one of the reasons the U.S. Senate seems so fundamentally broken.  Usually, like deserves like — outrage receives outrage.

But Tim does something different in this email — he walks the reader through exactly why the attack is so absurd (in face of Tim’s long and specific service in Virginia), what his relationship exactly is with President Obama (he agrees sometimes, disagrees sometimes, but is always proud to support the elected chief executive of the greatest nation on earth), and puts Allen’s attack in its proper context — as a symptom of everything Virginians should repudiate with their vote this fall.

Kudos to Tim and his campaign for marshaling facts, logic, and patriotism to respond to another tawdry shadow from the Bush-era politics of destruction our country desperately needs to claw out of, if we’re ever to summon the collective energy to tackle today’s problems.

And here’s the email:

—–

Dear Michael,

I’ve seen a lot in 18 years in politics. But here’s something that surprised me.

My Senate opponent, George Allen, is using billboards that say: “Tim Kaine. Obama’s Senator. Not Virginia’s.”

The message? That somehow, supporting the President makes you anti-Virginian. And today we learned that Karl Rove’s group, Crossroads, is coming out with a new attack ad against me tomorrow that reinforces that same message.

Most Virginians want our President to succeed — regardless of party — because that means our country and state will succeed.

And I can’t think of anything that’s more pro-Virginian.

It’s time we reject this type of divisive politics. If you want a Senator who’ll partner with the President to do what’s best for the nation, I’m your guy.

But I need your help to raise an additional $50,000 before the end of the month so we can fight back against these attacks and send an important message.

Can you make a contribution today and show that it’s not anti-Virginian to support the President? Your support will help show that it’s pro-Virginian and pro-American.

I’ve lived in the same neighborhood in Richmond for 27 years, and Anne and I have raised our three kids here.

I’ve served my community as a civil rights lawyer, parish council member, non-profit board chair, councilman, Mayor, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor.

I’ve helped my city and state win accolades for quality of life, business climate, and fiscal management.

But, suddenly I’m anti-Virginian?

We’re a state where more than 1 in 10 people are veterans and where our active duty, Guard and Reserve, DOD civilian employees, DOD contractors and military families predominate. We’re the home of the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery and the greatest concentration of naval power on earth. Suddenly it’s anti-Virginian to support the Commander in Chief — the man who ordered the mission to take out Osama bin Laden?

I am a proud friend and supporter of President Obama. We don’t always agree. And, when we disagree, I have and will continue to say so.

But the President is the top elected official of the greatest nation on earth. I’ll always work hard to be a partner to the President — whoever the person and whatever the party — for the good of my Commonwealth and my country. Just as I worked with President George W. Bush when I was governor.

Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be?

Too many of our politicians would rather fight partisan battles. Too many of our politicians would rather pit us against one another — telling us what makes us a “real Virginian” and what doesn’t.

I have news for them. We’re ALL real Virginians. We may not always agree on every issue, but we all love this Commonwealth and country, and want to work together to address tomorrow’s challenges, not rehash yesterday’s battles.

Can you make a contribution today and help to restore the politics of respect and defeat the politics of division?

Thanks very much.

Tim Kaine

Paid for by Kaine For Virginia

Contributions or gifts to Kaine for Virginia are not tax deductible.

In their report entitled “Ready or Not”, the NRDC evaluated whether states were prepared for and cognizant of climate change based on a combination of state action and actual state climate conditions. The report focused specifically on  water supply levels, precipitation levels, sea level concerns, saltwater intrusion, species impact, and erosion. In their analysis, the study divided states into four categories:

• Category One: states that have developed thorough preparation plans and have taken measures to (or have) implemented them.
• Category Two: states that have begun to prepare for climate change threats yet no action or preparation plans have been implemented.
• Category Three: states which have considered water-related climate change in a limited, narrow extent yet have done very little, or nothing at all, to prepare.
• Category Four: states which have not even formally addressed climate change or preparedness, though such states have policies that if enforced could prove beneficial to climate change concerns.

Sadly, Virginia, along with 17 other states, was graded into category three. And it appears little will change until the current state government considers the environment a substantive issue. In fact, Ben Chou, policy analyst for the NRDC, remarked that Virginia ranked poorly because it “had not done anything comprehensive at the state level…[and that] there won’t be a lot of action on the issue until it becomes a priority of the governor.”

So, while the ranking should come as no surprise, that fact that Virginia lacks a comprehensive adaption plan to address water-related climate change is a serious reason to worry. According to Steve Fleischli, director of the Water & Climate program at the NRDC, “The commonwealth of Virginia could lose $45 billion dollars and over 300,000 jobs by 2050 because of impacts on water availability alone in the state.”

He goes on to add that the Hampton Roads area, while has addressed sea-level rise at the regional level, is still ranked 10^th in the world for assets at risk due to sea-level change. To put things in better perspective, the NRDC found that a relative sea-level rise of 2 feet, entirely likely over the next 50 years given melting ice sheets and land subsidence, would make over 740 square miles, including 170 miles of major roadways and 35% of total port land area, vulnerable to permanent flooding.

While certainly Virginia’s localities can take the lead and implement climate change policies of their own, as is the case with Norfolk’s extensive plan to address sea-level rise, unless there is a unified, concerted effort by the entire state little can be done. This is especially true given that our waterways and watersheds extend through the entire state.(As seen in the diagram, the Chesapeake Bay watershed stretches into the Appalachian Mountains.)

Diagram One: Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Yet it is not just the state-specific impact that should give our government reason to implement a comprehensive response plan. The Defense Department, which has a large presence throughout the state, identified climate change and energy security as serious concerns. The Pentagon even named climate change, the very concept our Attorney General refuses to acknowledge, as an “accelerant of instability and conflict” and has issued a preparation plan of their own.

If the military has acknowledged, made, and carried out plans to address climate change, why has our state government not?

On Tuesday April 17, Governor McDonnell addressed some of the state’s most important political figures at the annual Sorensen Gala, hosted by the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership. In his remarks, the Governor talked about the “Virginia Way.” Yet, I find it disheartening that the Governor talks about the “Virginia Way” but also chooses to ignore climate change writ large. I also find it difficult to believe that the “Virginia Way” is to be reactive as opposed to a proactive to climate change realities.

To many, including myself, the “Virginia Way” is to foresee a problem and address it before it causes irreparable damage to our communities and economy.  If we all acknowledge the severity of climate change and act accordingly, only then can we say we’re truly governing in the “Virginia Way”?

—

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of members of the NDP Steering Committee.

On its face, the proposal seems to be perfectly sensible: give localities in Northern Virginia direct control over the maintenance of the secondary roads which are currently owned by the county but maintained by the state Department of Transportation. Redundancies would be removed and process for improving and maintaining roads would be simplified, thus leading to an increase in overall quality of the road system in an area which desperately needs it. However, as is so often the case, the issue has been oversimplified. Turning over control of the secondary road system to the counties is not merely an issue of jurisdiction. Were that the case the issue would have been decided a long time ago (and it would still remain with the state; counties, by Virginia law, are political subdivisions of the state and not independent entities).

The issue of transportation in northern Virginia is not merely a question of jurisdiction. It is a question of money and the amount necessary to properly maintain the complex infrastructure in place in the region. Many will point to Fairfax County’s status as the economic engine of the Commonwealth as proof that it could handle the burden of transportation maintenance funding. A casual glance at the county’s operating budget, which is projected to contain almost 3.5 billion in revenues would seem to add credence to this argument. Once again, this oversimplifies the issue. Fairfax County, as well as the other localities in the northern Virginia region, have to devote their budgets to carrying out not only transportation needs, but critical services such as public safety, education, healthcare and more. Already in the case of Fairfax, departing County Executive Anthony Griffin has said that revenues coming into the county are expected to be less than expenses for the foreseeable future. To add yet more responsibilities onto the counties, without providing the additional revenue which would be necessary to cover the newly incurred costs, amounts to little more than an abdication of responsibility by the state government.

Virginia is not a collection of independent counties. It is a Commonwealth, distinguished from a state for the simple reason that resources are pooled together and then allocated to areas where they are most needed. This is done for the simple reason that sometimes, an individual entity cannot carry the burden of a particular responsibility alone. Nowhere is this truer than in northern Virginia. The region is the economic engine for the rest of the state, something which state leaders in Richmond have often pronounced but seem to have been slow to back up with actions designed to keep that engine running. The economic well-being of Northern Virginia is critical to the economic well-being of the rest of the Commonwealth. To impose costs of such magnitude on the region without providing funding assistance would amount to a serious, if well-intentioned, misstep.

——-

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of members of the NDP Steering Committee.

I, for instance, a fourth-year at the University of Virginia, was recently asked to donate $20.12 to the University as a parting gift of sorts. They even allowed me to name the club, non-profit academic center, academic department, or school I would like to donate my money to. Certainly, I found this absolutely necessary. Cognizant of the decreasing funds our public universities are receiving from our Commonwealth, I immediately asked that my small gesture be donated to the College of Arts and Sciences – the largest undergraduate school at U.Va. and the school from which I will graduate.

Yet, in hindsight, I was stricken by perhaps the one-sidedness and even ineffectiveness of my gesture. While it is certainly the case that our departments and schools need critical funding, I asked myself about the students who make up the university in the first place? In an era where collective student debt in the United States exceeds $1 trillion, why could I not donate my $20.12 to a student fund dedicated to paying for current or future students’ tuition and college-related expenses?

While I am not the first to think of the idea, the uniqueness and value of such a concept could certainly reform the escalating student debt students’ today face.

SoFi (or Social Financial) is a private enterprise that has done just that. The mission of the California-based venture is to “restore the historical norms of community finance to help students meet their financial needs through alumni involvement.” In other words, SoFi, operating on the premise that the $1 trillion student loan market is flawed, offers students a way to receive a lower loan rate than private or federal counterparts but with the concomitant benefits of connections formed via alumni, who are the investors. As a result, these alumni, many of whom have well-established careers, become involved in each students’ success. Moreover, SoFi guarantees alumni investors a return of at least 5 percent.  (See the diagram below for how SoFi works.)

Social Financing: How it Works; source: sofi.com

While SoFi cannot entirely reduce college tuition nor can it undercut the multitude of alternative private and  state loan programs that currently exist, the social financial model provides a neat, innovative pathway for students.  In a time when student loans are impersonal guarantees between a student and some bank, involving alumni, an untapped source of capital, can ensure needed connections and even a passageway to success after graduation. Most of all, it can ensure students have the opportunity to adequately pay back their loans.

Fortunately, this program has positive implications for our notion of justice too. Consider the stories of two students: one who had to finance her education entirely through loans and another who, through the good graces of his parents, did not have to take out a single loan.

Under the current, dominant student loan scheme, the first student would have to pay back her loans for a large part of her life. This in turn could affect what job she chooses to pursue or even the likelihood she buys a car, house, or other large investment in the near future. In fact, her student loans may serve as a gatekeeper to remaining in or entering the middle-class. And to make matters worse, given her background, her social connections are limited and her prospects after college, even though she may have been a stellar student, are not totally bright.

Meanwhile, in comparison, the latter student has no debt, a secure job (received through social connections of his parents), and no impediments to upward mobility. He has all the necessary connections — delivered in good faith by his parents — and the world is his oyster.

So what went wrong? The first student, who for sake of this example carried the same major and GPA as student #2, is not only burdened by student loans from the outset but also may have a difficult time paying her loans back since she lacks strong social connections to land a job.

While to some this is fair (after all, luck is an uncontrollable variable that plays such a large role in our lives), it reeks of injustice and flies in the face of the meritocracy our society purports to be. Thus, the social (or alumni) component of private loan schemes, like those of SoFi, mean more than just lower interest rates, it has the potential to, while providing a social good, equal the playing field. Put in simpler terms, social financing has the ability to mitigate luck or good fortune.

Fortunately, SoFi is spreading all across the nation and even will be opening financing opportunities for students at the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary, and Virginia Tech, according to their website. But while it is great to see that our state’s flagship schools are included, it would be even better to see our Commonwealth’s other schools, whose students may comparatively have limited or weaker social connections, to be included as well.

Furthermore, it would not be an unwise decision if the schools themselves mimic what SoFi has done. With strong alumni connections already in place and the fact that alumni are probably more willing to donate directly to the school (with the potential of a return to their investment) as opposed to some private venture, it could be a wise decision to implement social loan financing at both our state’s public and private institutions. For instance, at the University of Virginia, the U.Va. alumni association maintains a website intended to connect students to alumni. This program, no doubt, could be further bolstered if alumni were financially invested in students.

Today, there is a student debt crisis looming and while social financing may not, in one swift motion, be its panacea, it can incorporate a necessary element to student loans: social connections and capital. After all, our notions of justice and meritocracy depend on it.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of members of the NDP Steering Committee.

Governor Schweitzer recounted the tale of the “copper barons” of Montana, who in the late 19^th century effectively owned the state legislature, going so far as to openly hand out bribes to members as they left the chamber after taking votes which had benefited the barons. One of these men even saw fit to bribe the legislature to elect him United States Senator. (This was before the 17^th Amendment allowing the direct election of U.S. Senators had been passed). Upon his arrival in Washington, the copper baron discovered that the Senate would not seat him, as it did not condone the method in which he had been elected.

In refusing to seat a man who had gotten where he was solely though corruption, the Senate was demonstrating an ability to police itself. This is an area where Virginia is clearly falling short. The lack of an ethics commission is the tip of the iceberg, as was touched on by my colleague Neal Modi last week. The lack of limits on campaign contributions is more worrying to me and conjures up images of lobbyists from Dominion Energy prowling the halls of the General Assembly in much the same manner that the agents of the copper barons did in Montana. While we have had only one major ethics scandal in the Virginia General Assembly in recent years, one cannot assume that the absence of further scandals indicates that none are occurring. The absence of evidence, after all, is not the evidence of absence.

This brings me to my final point: where has Virginia’s chief law enforcement officer been while this has been going on? Apparently the Attorney General believes his time is better spent running for higher office or focusing his office’s time on issues of no importance to Virginians such as suing the University of Virginia over climate change, or making sure Virginia was the first to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, an act which will benefit all Virginians if enacted.

A review of the Attorney General’s office’s Annual Report from 2010 (the 2011 Annual Report was not available online) indicates that no corruption cases are pending before the higher courts in Virginia and not a single press release from his office mentioned prosecutions or arrests for anything related to corruption. Indeed, the suit against the Environmental Protection Agency and against the Affordable Care Act are still featured prominently on the Attorney General’s official website as “Hot Topics”.

Maybe the Attorney General should pay more attention to events happening here in Virginia and less time rabble-rousing on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington.

——-

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of members of the NDP Steering Committee.