Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Moderate War in '09?

Not Gerry Conolley (a Republican), a guest blogger at NLS has a post up about '09 being the year of the moderate for the GOP. He (or she) is predicting that Bolling is the GOP gubenatorial candidate in '09. He then goes on to say that if Gilmore runs as well, then it will leave open the possibility of a moderate to move in and get the nod. He then has a list of possible GOP contenders for each nomination. They are:
Governor:Bolling, Gilmore, Connaughton, Tom Davis, Thelma Drake, Jerry Kilgore
LG (moderates): Emmett Hanger, Chris Saxman, JeanneMarie Devolites-Davis, Joe May, Gil Davis and Connaughton
AG: Baril, Cuccinelli, Albo, Bill Mims, and McDonnell if he loses this time

I really have no disagreements about any of those candidates trying to get the nominations, but I would say over half have no chance.
The best part of the post is that NGC calls Chris Saxman a moderate. I wouldn't call most of these folks moderate, but this is a first for Saxman.
I am not sure I agree with the assessment that moderates will get nods in '09, but we will see I suppose. If Chris Saxman is a moderate, I say we need to run moderates every election.

28 Comments:

  • At 12/09/2005 3:53 PM, Blogger too conservative said…

    Agreed on the Saxman point.

     
  • At 12/09/2005 6:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said…

    The terms moderate and conservative have been debased for political purposes in Virginia to the point that they have no meaning. They've become crude weapons, mere epithets, not analytical tools to define philosophy or positions. 90% of what goes on in the Virginia government doesn't really have a conservative/moderate/liberal solution in any event. A moderate is now any Republican who is against my guy.

     
  • At 12/09/2005 6:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The Family Foundation scorecard says Saxman voted for a bill to allow gays to offer insurance coverage to their partners. Not too conservative.

     
  • At 12/09/2005 7:23 PM, Blogger republitarian said…

    First of all you can't stop people from making contracts between them.

    i.e. when to gay dudes want to leave their junk to each other when they die or make medical decisions for each other.

    If I'm not mistaken, the constitutional ban on gay marriage would do that. Gophokie, do you really think the state should not let people make arrangements with people they "love"?

     
  • At 12/09/2005 10:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    frankly, the saxman vote (a jim dillard bill if i remember correctly) is not about gay rights but rather about government not dictating certain decisions that should be made by an individual business.

     
  • At 12/09/2005 11:20 PM, Blogger AWCheney said…

    The bill you are referencing was considered a pro-business bill, allowing the business themselves to choose whether they will offer health insurance to non-traditional families, not requiring them to do so. Now, this would include single parent households, unmarried heterosexual couples, and, yes, gay couples (there are probably more household designations, I don't recall). The business community requested this right primarily to make our state more attractive to companies that might be interested in relocating to Virginia. Obviously, it was not considered a "gay agenda" issue until some people chose to spin it that way in order to forward their own agenda.

     
  • At 12/09/2005 11:52 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Myron, I have never heard that the gay marriage ban will stop gay couples from willing their estate to their partner. I cannot imagine that being in there either.
    As to this Saxman bill, I don't know much about it. AWC seems to know, and it sounds like a good bill.

     
  • At 12/09/2005 11:55 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said…

    A vote to help the business community attract and retain capable workers doesn't seem particularly ideological, one way or the other. No one is forced to do anything. Conservatives do not support anti-market prohibitions. Oops! I used one of the words I'm trying to get everyone to stop using for a while. This isn't going to be easy.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    sounds a like a free market, less involvement of the government in our lives, try to help people get private health insurance instead of medicaid kind of bill. who else voted for it?

     
  • At 12/10/2005 10:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    just checked on the other votes for - albo, bell, joannou, johnson, louderback, marrs(didn't an anti gay fundraising letter hurt his campaign) wardrup, o'bannon, suit and tata. let's see if there are 5% of the people who are actually gay, does that leave 95% of the people who would likewise be helped?

     
  • At 12/10/2005 10:17 AM, Blogger AWCheney said…

    This, specifically, was the bill that Steve Chapman used against Harry Parrish in the Primary this past year, declaring Harry a big supporter of the gay agenda based on this vote. It's why I'm very familiar with it.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 10:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    And like Parrish, Saxman voted with the 17 House GOPers to freeze the car tax cut. If it walks like a duck...

     
  • At 12/10/2005 10:41 AM, Anonymous gopwahoo said…

    I actually asked Saxman about this vote at the Advance. I was impressed because he responded with a very well thought out and sincere explanation. He noted that every other state in the US had this provision in place, and that the bill pro-business, as well as pro-family, because it would allow families to work with their employers on the option to provide benefits to extended family members or care givers who may otherwise be on taxpayer funded benefit programs, such as Medicaid. Frankly, I think that working to get more people insured through private providers rather than having the state (taxpayers) pay for them helps all Virginia families by keeping a check on one of the fastest growing areas of the budget (Medicaid and welfare programs)...

     
  • At 12/10/2005 10:57 AM, Blogger AWCheney said…

    Good for you, GOPWahoo.

    And you, Anon. 10:38 AM, did you, at any time, attempt to take the opportunity to ASK any of those 17 Legislators to explain their vote on the car tax, and the context and timing of it?

     
  • At 12/10/2005 11:10 AM, Anonymous gopwahoo said…

    Thank you, AWC.

    You make a good point-- Too many times we don't take the time to figure out the whole story on issues... When I asked Saxman, I was impressed how much thought he'd put into his voting and that the issue was very different than some of the talk I'd heard.

    I also think there was more behind the car tax cap vote, as wasn't the cost of the car tax the real issue behind all the talk about losing our AAA bond rating?

     
  • At 12/10/2005 12:02 PM, Blogger AWCheney said…

    It was a big part of it, GOPWahoo. Consider the principal argument that Warner could present to the GOP legislators who were talked into supporting the tax increase: It's YOUR fault that we are in danger of losing our AAA rating...

    Devastating to gentlemen who are accustomed to taking responsibility for their own actions, and there is no doubt that the TIMING of the car tax reduction did create financial chaos in a state that prides itself on its history of fiscal responsibility. I expect that Gov. Warner pushed all the right buttons.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 12:24 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Sounds like you guys are certainly very knowledgeable about these issues.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 12:35 PM, Anonymous gopwahoo said…

    Thanks for the insight, AWC. To clarify, the vote on capping the car tax was separate from the vote on the tax increase package, right?

     
  • At 12/10/2005 12:39 PM, Blogger AWCheney said…

    Oh yes...but that doesn't mean that the rationale couldn't have been the same.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 12:49 PM, Anonymous gopwahoo said…

    Thanks, just making sure.

    I think I understand the rationale. I would be interested to hear from some of the legislators who decided to vote for the cap but voted against the tax increase. To me that seems logical and fiscally conservative to cap an expenditure rather than increase taxes in order to protect the AAA rating.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 1:05 PM, Blogger AWCheney said…

    I know that a significant number of our Legislators take any and all honest, legitimate inquiries quite seriously and respond. Whether by email (quickest response), phone, or snail mail it's certainly worth a try. Contact one of the "17"; I have no doubt that you'll get a response.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 1:34 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said…

    Every gang of 17 member I have ever talked to has had no problem explaining why they voted the way they did.
    I still don't agree with the vote, but I understand where they were coming from. That is part of the reason I was not a huge supporter of taking some of those guys out.
    If we were actually willing to overturn the increase I would have been more supportive of taking these guys out.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 4:26 PM, Anonymous gopwahoo said…

    To clarify, I was not referring to the "gang of 17" who voted for the tax increase. I was referring to those who voted to cap the car tax...I get the sense there were different issues being discussed that some of us are not fully aware of.

     
  • At 12/10/2005 10:07 PM, Blogger AWCheney said…

    I fully agree with you on both counts, although I believe that much of the reasoning overlaps. I may be wrong, of course. I do know that Harry Parrish, for one, is committed to following through on the car tax as part of the return of the surplus to the taxpayer. We'll see what happens in the next legislative session. It should be interesting to follow.

     
  • At 12/20/2005 4:02 PM, Blogger Car Insurance Center said…

    I just came across your blog and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here.
    I also have a web site & blog about auto insurance quote so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work!

     
  • At 4/18/2006 10:02 AM, Blogger Stan said…

    Different Car Insurance

    There are different types of insurance coverage available, thus the best question to ask when applying for insurance, is which policy is available to me. In the beginning of the 19th century laws were passed stating that anyone driver a motor vehicle is by law obligated to have a measure of coverage. The drive can take out full coverage, or else �third-party� coverage, which will protect them in the event an accident occurs. The policy will keep you out of the arms of the law even if you are pulled over for a traffic violation, by protecting you from getting citations, fines, jail, or towed vehicle for no proof.

    Third party will offer a measure of protection, however it will not protect you entirely if an accident occurs, and most likely will not cover you if your car is stolen. If you possess a �High-Performance� or �Classic� vehicle, then you will need supplementary coverage, outside of third-party coverage. In fact, you will need full coverage, plus the supplementary coverage to protect your vehicle. The coverage offered to these customers is to protect them extensively, since the risks are higher and the cost of repairs on such vehicles is twice more expensive than standard vehicles.

    If you only take out third-party insurance on a high dollar vehicle, then you will pay the cost of repair and suffer losses in the event you are in an accident, unless the other driver is at fault. However, if that driver is at fault, still you may pay the cost that is not covered under the other drivers insurance if he too has third-party coverage. The third-party coverage will cover drivers on �public roads,� or private roads.� The policy may offer limited coverage for �legal liabilities� and �passenger indemnity.� The passenger indemnity means that if you are driving and your passenger hit�s a parked vehicle with the passenger door then you will be covered. The coverage may offer protection against fire and theft also, which will provide you a measure of coverage in the event your car is stolen or fire occurs. However, you must read the terms and agreements carefully, since some third-party coverage is minimal and will not offer this protection. On the other hand, comprehensive full coverage will defend you on nearly every possible occurrence. Comprehensive full insurance coverage �is the complete form of car insurance� that �adds accidental damage� coverage �to the 3 policies discussed.�

    The comprehensive coverage can protect you, despite the level of damage, and will cover you on many �personal accidents� in the event you are injured. Third-party coverage was not planned to provide the coverage that the comprehensive policies bring. Third Party Only is a liability policy that will prevent you from charge if you cause an accident. The Policy will provide a measure of assurance that if you are in an industrial accident �the innocent party�s repair/replacement costs are insured against.

    Thus, insurance coverage is different and most companies base the pricing on age, driving history, gender, type of car, and so forth. Regardless of the type of insurance you are seeking, all policies have premiums. The companies will often ask customers to provide an estimated guess as to how many miles you drive each year and this too will affect your premiums. Most companies estimate that drivers should only drive around 12,000 miles per year, but it depends on the company. Furthermore, under law you are responsible for your vehicle, therefore, if you are seeking insurance coverage and intend to allow other drivers to drive the car, make sure you get coverage for other drivers, otherwise if the driver causes an accident, by law you will pay for the damage, loss, death, and any other problem the accident caused. Thus, if you have a new car, high-performance vehicle, and other risky materials or issues that can increase your premiums, take not of each area that may be considered a high risk and point this out to the agent ahead of time. It makes sense to get several quotes if you pose a potential high risk to find the best rates on car insurance plans.

    For more insurance information please visit
    http://thehomeworkco.com/insurance/index.php or http://cheapcarinsurance1.blogspot.com

     
  • At 5/11/2006 11:55 PM, Blogger Paul Adams said…

    Hi Blogger!I like your blog! Keep up the
    good work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here!
    If you have a moment, please take a look at my site:
    insurance center
    It pretty much covers insurance center related issues.
    Best regards!

     
  • At 8/02/2006 5:48 PM, Anonymous business holiday insurance travel said…

    Hi Friend! You have a great blog over here!
    Please accept my compliments and wishes for your happiness and success!
    If you have a moment, please take a look at my business holiday insurance travel site.
    Have a great day!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home