Ok, don't vote often. Don't let anyone say I ever encouraged voter fraud...

I love the fact that Virginia has early voting and that it is pretty easy to qualify to vote early. Back in 2000 I missed out on my opportunity to vote due to being called out of town on business at the last minute. That is one of the hazards of being a consultant; your schedule can and will change at a moment's notice. A consultant is only as good as billable hours say he, or she, is.

In some ways it is fortunate that I wasn't able to vote in 2000 since I was planning on voting for Bush. At least I can say that I never actually made that mistake. Anway...

Early voting is a good thing. Early voting makes it easier for people to participate in Democracy.

On one hand I don't disagree with Marc Fisher's stance that early voting is bad, but on the other hand, having voted early today I can say for certain that part of his argument holds no water. Early voting doesn't mean voting alone. I showed up to vote first thing this morning and stood on line with at least 40 other citizens all there to be counted.

In the future I will go to the polls on election day when I can but I will also continue to take advantage of early voting when it makes sense. Vote early, vote absentee, vote on time, just vote.

Yes.

It is that simple. Our legal system is designed around the premise that when people commit crimes and are convicted they are both punished and given the opportunity to reform and return to productive lives when their sentence has been completed. Part of leading a productive life is participating in our political system by casting a ballot on election day.

The author behind the VA GOP Caucus blog thinks that restoring voter rights to ex-felons "is just a slap in the face to every law abiding citizen who votes" and "it has also provided Virginia with a reputation for being a dangerous place to live".

First, I happen to be a law abiding citizen of Virginia that votes every year and I don't find it to be a slap in the face.

Second, as one of only two status in the Union that permanently bars felons from voting (the Governor has to reinstate an ex-felon's voting rights), I don't see how anyone would get the impression that this makes our state a more dangerous place to live. There is no logic at all behind this argument, only fear and stupidity.

Here is my personal belief on the point of the original post:

• The GOP hates the idea of restoring voting rights to felons because the demographic of the prison population is one that does not tend to vote Republican when allowed to vote. The idea of restoring voting rights to reformed offenders terrifies them because they believe that the ex-felons will vote for Democrats at a time when the GOP is losing a lock on politics in the state.
• The author of the "un-official" blog of the VA GOP Caucus loves taking cheap shots at Time Kaine and is not worried about letting facts get in the way.

Attacking the idea of restoring voting rights to ex-felons is, at its core, against the very idea and spirit of our participatory Democracy. In fact, it is downright un-American and unpatriotic.

To all of you Republicans who think that Palin won the debate with Biden, let me ask you one question:

Huh?

Seriously, what debate were you watching? I have never been a big fan of Joe Biden but there is no way anyone can seriously tell me that Palin beat him last night. Palin wasn't even in the same zip code. From the first minute she opened he mouth it was obvious that she was terrified (shaking, speaking in a clipped hurried voice, staring fixedly into the camera, etc.) and coached so hard that her answers for the first several questions (which I am not sure she answered frankly) were memorized. Not one of her answers demonstrated any real, personal knowledge of the subject at hand.

Biden, on the other hand, looked much more at ease. He spoke in a manner that was straight forward, looked at Ifill, Palin, and the camera as he talked and never one seemed to be working from a memorized script. Biden prodded Palin without bullying her and interacted in a respectful manner the whole time.

Frankly, if you think that Palin won that debate you were already in the tank for the McCain/Palin ticket. The only victory that I can see in her performance is that she didn't end up on the ground in the fetal position sobbing. If Palin is the kind of person that you want to see sitting in the White House...

On Saturday I posted Jeff Frederick's latest fund raising email and asked whether or not he was planning to run for reelection. Turns out he has answered this question and his response is:

"A lot of guys around here are trying to convince me,'' Frederick said during a House recess. "I really don't want to (run)...But if there's this huge call and everyone in the world wants me to run for re-election, I guess there is some chance. If the whole world says we're going to relieve you of your pledge." (WP)

If Jeff Frederick were a man of his word wouldn't he have just said, "No, I am not going to run. I pledged not to run and I will not break that pledge."

Jeff Frederick said that he would not run for reelection in the 52nd district if he was elected to Chair the RPV. Frederick won the contest and so one would assume that he is not running for reelection. Can someone then explain the following email that Frederick sent out this afternoon:

I need your help. Really.

Between preparing for the birth of our second child, running my small business to pay the Bills, running for statewide Party office, and going to Richmond for the special sessions, I haven't been doing much fundraising for House of Delegates seat.

Midnight June 30 is our fundraising deadline for the last 6 months of activity and I'm just $10,000 shy of our goal for this reporting period.

If you can spare a few bucks, I'd be grateful if you could take a minute, go online, and make a financial contribution to our efforts. We need to show strong numbers on this report, and with your help, we'll be able to do so. I'm counting on it.

Go to: http://votejeff.com/contribute.asp. Or, you can mail a check dated June 30 (or before) to:

Friends of Jeff Frederick

P.O. Box XXX

Woodbridge, VA 22194

Thanks again for all your continued encouragement, support, and especially your prayers.

Note that this money is for Friends of Jeff Frederick and not the RPV, or a PAC, or any other political fund raising machine. Now I know that this would not keep Frederick from giving the money away to other candidates but it still seems a little strange.

So Jeff, are you planning on running for reelection? If not, why the emergency fund raising?

My brother, being a very cool older brother, took me to Dover yesterday for the Best Buy 400 at the Monster Mile for my birthday. The image above shows the pace car bringing everyone through turn 4 on their way to take the green flag at the start of the race. Kyle Busch (inside car on row two) ended up cruising to victory.

Interesting. Jeff Frederick's company GXS Partners is listed as the owner of VoteAmy.com. With Jeff having promised not to run for office if elected to chair the RPV is he moving his wife Amy into position to replace him as the House Representative for the 52nd district? The domain was registered back in 2003 which seems to far back in the past for this specific scenario to have been on the happy couples' minds but it is certainly convenient if Amy is planning on running!

I live in the 11th Congressional District and was pleased that Tom Davis decided to retire. My pleasure has been tempered recently though by the battle for the Democratic nomination. The silly battle of Byrne vs. Connolly leaves me wondering why Andy Hurst isn't running...

Anyway, although I am no fan of Gerry Connolly I will give him this, his campaign is much less annoying than Leslie Byrne's. Having been bombarded by mailers for Byrne the last few weeks all I can say is, what is it that she plans on doing if elected to the House? All I know is that she thinks Gerry Connolly is a war profiteer which is a completely silly argument from my point of view as someone who does contracting and has at times worked as a subcontractor with SAIC... unless of course that makes me a war profiteer as well...

Connolly on the other hand has run a mostly positive campaign with only one mailer that pointed out how Byrne has a bad habit of trashing other Democrats including Warner and Kaine.

From my perspective it seems like Byrne is doing her best to be divisive while Connolly is getting support from the mainstream folks in the party. For her part Byrne seems to have the net (or nut) roots locked up with few left leaning blogs saying anything nice about Connolly. Having lived about half my life in Fairfax County I am not a big fan of Connolly but when November rolls around I think he has the best chance of beating all opponents. Connolly has the best name recognition and Byrne has done what in the last 10 years?

Now that Jeff Frederick has announced that he will not run for relection to his seat in the VA House if elected RPV Chair I thought that I would chime in with my two cents on the issue...

Please, please vote for Jeff Frederick!

Corey Stewart sent out an email this afternoon claiming that the BOCS actually strengthened the illegal immigration resolution during last night's meeting and pointed to an article in today's Washington Times to back up his version of events.

The only problem with Stewart's version of events is that every other media outlet is backing up the version of events as I recall them, specifically that the resolution was altered so that officers on the street were no longer directed to check the immigration status of anyone who was not arrested. Officers are no longer required to check status if they suspect (have probable cause to suspect) that someone they stop for a minor offense might be here illegally. Although this is left up to the "discretion" of the officer it is pretty clear that based on legal concerns expressed by both the police department and the County Attorney we can expect that few, if any, officers will chose to do so since the BOCS has not shown that they are willing to go to bat for officers if such a decision leads to a lawsuit.

The revision to the policy is better for the county as a whole. It says that all suspects that have actually been arrested will have their immigration status checked. This means that everyone arrested will be treated the same and that officers are not vulnerable to lawsuits based on claims of discrimination because they have no discretion in the matter.

Did anyone lose in last night's vote? I guess it depends on your outlook on the matter. Corey Stewart and Greg Letieq are forced to spin the hell out of what happened in order for it to look like what happened isn't a softening of the policy (Pr. William Softens Policy on Immigration Status Checks) but they are sticking with their guns on claiming that this change actually strengthens the resolution. Frankly I don't care if they want to strut around claiming victory so long as our police officers on the street no longer worry about having to waste large amounts of their time and effort on enforcing Federal immigration law.

Corey Stewart did some back sliding this evening... the "Rule of Law" resolution has been modified to be less aggressive then it had been regarding the ability of officers to check immigration based on probable cause. From what I can gather based on Stewart's poor explanation of the change (and spin so as to try and cover his butt from the ensuing attacks by HSM and company) police will only be checking immigration status of those people who are actually arrested and detained. In other words, folks stopped for basic traffic violations who would not otherwise be arrested and detained by police will not have their immigration status checked by the police.

It seems that the votes were there to overturn the portion of the resolution pertaining to probably cause and that a back room deal was reached to remove that aspect of the resolution in order to reach a compromise tax rate of 97 cents.

So, how do HSM members feel about Stewart back sliding on the "Rule of Law" resolution in order to get a compromise tax rate?

The comments on BVBL right now are hysterical. There is howling going on about how the BOCS gutted the resolution. I guess that is one sign of how HSM and company feel about what happened. Think that they will be lining up at the next BOCS meeting thank Stewart and Stirrup for being tough on illegal immigration?

Vivian Paige kindly pointed out the following post on The official blog of the Virginia House of Delegates GOP Caucus: Tim Kaine needs to clean up his mess!!!!!

The post includes, at the bottom, a drawing I made of Tim Kaine back in early 2007 that was posted on this blog. The problem with the usage here is that the VA GOP Caucus are using this image without permission or proper attribution (as clearly spelled out on this site) and so are in violation of copyright law.

I find it striking that the official blog of Republican Delegates (law makers) would have so little problem in violating laws.

Update: The blog in question has posted a new image (a cheap parody of the orginal they stole from this site) in response to my displeasure with their theft.

As to some of the questions of fair use here are my responses. First, I am not a lawyer however as someone who attended art school and does from time to time sell my work I have made an effort to familiarize myself with the law regarding copyright and fair use. In regards to the political cartoons that I drew I am not concerned with a monetary value as I did not produce them in order to make money and have never placed a financial value on them. My blog however does clearly state on every page that:

No part of Craig's Musings maybe used without the express written consent of Craig Vitter unless its usage is properly attributed to Craig Vitter and Craig's Musings. Proper attribution should include a link to the entry from which material has been quoted/copied.

The VA GOP Caucus took the image, and contrary to some assertions, posted said image on their site without alteration to illustrate a point. Although it still had my copyright mark on the image that is not the definition of fair use nor could it be considered a parody because of the lack of alteration. I would most likely have a case to take the Caucus to court over the theft however such a suit would be pointless as I would not be in a position to collect monetary damages because I put no monetary value on the image and would be unlikely to argue that its illegal use caused me any real harm (worthy of financial damages at least). The best I could hope for would be an injunction requiring that the Caucus stop using the image.

Regardless, the reason the "theft" bothers me so much in this case is that the "theft" was pointless. If the Caucus had simply bothered to write in the post that they got the image from my blog and provided a link to the source of the original material I would have been 100% fine with its use most likely even if I don't agree with the Caucus on the point that they were attempting to make.

When I say the Pledge of Allegiance these are the words I recite:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

According to TownHall.com columnist Mark Medved that makes me the sort of person who should never be elected President of the United States of America (Americans Are Right To Resist An Atheist As President).

Mark Medved makes some patently absurd arguments against an atheist being president including this particularly awesome gem:

Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones.

Medved says that having an atheist in office would make state occasions hollow and full of hypocrisy. Take the pledge of allegiance for example. How could the President say the Pledge of Allegiance if he (or she) didn’t believe in god? I would suggest that they could quite simply follow my example and recite the pledge the way it was recited prior to 1954 when the works “under god” replaced the word “indivisible”.

Medved also argues that to be an atheist is to “show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority”. As Doug over at Below the Beltway wrote so succinctly in response, “According to Michael Medved, there is one acceptable form of bigotry, the bigotry against those who don’t believe in a god”.

Let’s make something abundantly clear, while the average atheist may not understand how someone can be a theist, you are unlikely to be accosted by an atheist trying to convert you to their point of view. Atheists don’t go door to door attempting to disabuse theists of their faiths. At worse, publicly active atheists might attempt to protect themselves from being assaulted by right-wing efforts to move this nation towards theocracy (something Medved clearly supports).

Although I am myself an atheist, I respect the fact that there are people who believe in god (or gods) and have deeply held religious beliefs even if I do not understand the why or how of those beliefs (I was raised within a Lutheran church and am familiar with that tradition). That said, the older I get the more I find it difficult to sit back and bite my tongue as people mindlessly spew their hatred of all things that do not fall within their neat little religious view of the world. I am especially tired of the Christian right in this country who howl at all supposed attacks on Christianity but have no problem turning around and attacking anyone with beliefs different from their own.

Medved, for his part, does make a lame attempt at not completely dismissing atheists in his final paragraph:

“The truth is that atheism remains a vibrant intellectual tradition and a healthy competitor in the marketplace of ideas – far less popular than our mainstream religions, but still capable of challenging those faiths and adding a bracing element to our national conversation. In the fierce competition among religious outlooks (some 40% of Americans embrace a denomination other than the one in which they began) no one wants to silence or extirpate atheism but big majorities rightly resist the idea of giving that non-faith official status and a powerful platform by placing an openly-advertised atheist in the White House.”

In other words atheism is fascinating but let’s not encourage anyone else to question their faith by giving an atheist a position of power!

Seriously, does anyone believe that an atheist, if elected to the highest office in the land, would use their term trying to disabuse citizens of their faith? Or that Islamic radicals would hate us (Americans) more if we had an atheist in the White House?

Finally, word today in the Washington Examiner that cooler, more thoughtful heads might prevail in Prince William County (Prince William supervisors reconsidering police crackdown). Republican Supervisor Nohe and Democratic Supervisor Principi spoke before the Greater Prince William Manassas Chamber of Commerce and Principi was quoted as saying:

"The illegal-immigration policy is an 800-pound gorilla that is following us around in everything we do," Supervisor Frank Principi, D-Woodbridge, said. "It's time to put the gorilla back in the cage."

Amen to that.

For his part Corey Stewart responded by saying:

"It might be an 800-pound gorilla, but it's a good gorilla."

The good news here, and it is not really surprising to people who have followed the budget debates ongoing within the BOCS, is that there are a number of supervisors that waking up to the fact that cost of police portion of the resolution are far greater than anticipated and continuing to grow. ICE is unable to keep up with our requests and has asked PWC nicely to keep the referrals to the worst of the worst (in line with their original plan of 40 referrals per month).

I support fully the county efforts within the ADC to identify and remove dangerous illegal aliens from our community. Hauling people down to the ADC for broken tail lights however is a recipe for disaster.

Bravo to Mr. Nohe and Mr. Principi for having the strength of character to say so publicly.

Dear Board of County Supervisors Members;

I am writing to each of you to express my frustration over the board’s inability to come to a resolution of the Silver Lake issue during last night’s meeting. The issue of what to do with Silver Lake has been before the board for quite some time now and during this time the board has heard on multiple occasions from the three parties with interest in the property as well as the citizens of Prince William County. Citizens of this county should have had every expectation that its elected representatives would have been fully briefed on all three options and been prepared to come to a decision that reflected the best interest of the county. The failure to act last night reflects poorly on the board’s ability to parse complex issues, form a consensus, and act on the matters before it in a timely matter. 

However, what I find even more distasteful then the board’s lack of leadership and consensus (not limited to the issue of Silver Lake), is the fact that several members of the board are prepared to deed Silver Lake to the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy. While I believe that Supervisor Stirrup expressed the sentiment quite elegantly last night, I think that there is one crucial point that bears repeating: Silver Lake was proffered by Toll Brothers to the citizens of Prince William County. This means that Silver Lake belongs to all of the citizens of Prince William County and not merely to one small, vocal constituency. 

Deeding Silver Lake to BRMC, regardless of the high minded ideals behind their plans for the property, would remove the ability for the citizens of the county to have their say into the manner in which the property is managed. Once the deed has been conveyed to the BRMC that’s it, BRMC is in charge. If the citizens or the BOCS takes issue with the manner in which the property is being managed by the BRMC what recourse will the citizens have short of costly litigation?

I have great respect for what BRMC has accomplished with the lands that they currently manage and believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have nothing but the best of intentions for Silver Lake. That said, BRMC is a private organization with a limited membership and no inherent reason once the land has been deeded to them to listen to the will of the people of Prince William County who are the rightful owners of the land. This is a very real concern that the board needs to consider given the fact that the BRMC demonstrated during the proposal process a very real unwillingness to discuss alternatives to their proposed usage for the property with the PWCPA. 

The citizens of Prince William County have, time and time again, told the BOCS that they want more park and open spaces. In 2006 over 70% of voters approved the park bond in a concrete demonstration of their desire. While there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the county is facing dire financial problems, any board member willing to deed Silver Lake to a private organization in an attempt to save tax payer dollars is, in effect, abdicating the responsibilities and leadership role for which they were elected to  the BOCS in the first place. It is the board’s responsibility to ensure that Silver Lake is held and managed in perpetuity for all citizens of Prince William County and to make the tough financial decisions with the county’s budget to ensure that this happens.

Regards,
Craig Vitter

This evening Corey Stewart is bending over backwards to break board rules to benefit the Prince William County Conservation Alliance and the Bull Run Mountain Conservancy. First Stewart extended the PWCCA's representatives time during Citizen's Time. Then Stewart extended the BRMC's speakers time not once but twice during the 5 minute presentation on what to do with Silver Lake where neither the PWCPA or NVRPA got more than five minutes.