But it doesn’t apply to the elite

Governors, mayors, and all officials were asking people to stay home so plows could get through.  This is one of the heaviest single snowstorms to hit the DC area since recordkeeping began.

But the Democrats held a winter meeting.

Obama thanked Democrats for being “willing to brave a blizzard. Snowmageddon here in D.C.”

During the Christmas snowstorm, some were so hot to vote on their health insurance bills (not healthcare — we haven’t seen a healthcare bill yet), both Jim Webb and Barbara Mikulski touted their willingness to drive (or be driven, in Mikulski’s case) through snow, against advice.

Rules don’t apply to politicians

Saturday, the DC area had a major snowstorm, with up to 23 inches of snow in most areas.  The Virginia Department of Transportation responded to over 2900 accidents; I don’t have figures on the District and Maryland.

Governors of both Maryland and Virginia asked people to stay off the roads.  DON’T GO OUT.  Nowhere in the warnings did I see “unless you’re a politician.”

But Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin of Maryland are proud of the fact they went to the Capitol for a vote that could have been taken later.  Jim Webb and Mark Warner “braved the elements” — (“Webb, who lives in Falls Church, used his Jeep to plow through the snow, his office said.“) To vote on a bill that no one but the politicians want — that is really the pet project of  a few senators (see how Sen Nelson held things up — and he is only one person.)

Braving the elements is not the honorable thing to do here, folks.

What’s the hurry?   Were the politicians so worried they’d lose a vote if they waited until streets were clear?  Maybe that should tell them something.

I guess THEY don’t have to listen to governors.  After all, they’re the elite.

And I thought Sen. Jim Webb was arrogant

Today I received this PRESS RELEASE.  Perhaps Cuccinelli needs to run for US Senate – he certainly has the cojones for it.

PRESS RELEASE
March 3, 2009

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Chris LaCivita
202-907-1055

Ken Cuccinelli wins Republican National Lawyers Association Debate

(Arlington, VA) – Demonstrating a solid grasp of the issues facing the next Attorney General, State Senator Ken Cuccinelli today laid out to George Mason law students his vision of how the Attorney General can help our economy by creating jobs and keeping Virginia a low-tax, low-regulation and pro-business state.

“I’m proud of how we did today.  Governor Gilmore did an outstanding job of moderating this debate and I enjoyed laying out those principle differences between myself and my opponents.  I look forward to pushing for the conservative issues that matter most to Virginia families as the next Attorney General.”

Today’s debate was held at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington.

Ken Cuccinelli has been a member of the Virginia Senate since 2002. He is a small business owner and partner in the law firm of Cuccinelli & Day, PLLC, in Fairfax.
He is a business law attorney with a particular focus on intellectual property protection and serving as an outsourced general counsel to small and mid-sized companies. His wide range of experience includes litigation, licensing, financing, employment, advertising, branding, corporate formation, business transactions and contracts for both domestic and international clients. Ken also has experience in public interest, constitutional law and property rights cases.
Ken’s bar admissions include the Patent Bar, Virginia State Bar, Eastern District of Virginia, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Court of International Trade, Court of Veteran Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.

# # #

Note again the words “PRESS RELEASE”.  I haven’t seen any independent source that says anyone “won” this debate.  Old Virginia News repeats the press release verbatim, as if it were true, and as if it were news.  No one else is mentioning it yet, as near as I can tell.
Frankly, the race for the Republican nomination as Virginia Attorney General  is disgusting.  None of the three candidates seems to understand the difference between the legislative and judicial functions of government.  All seem to have legislative agendas for their role as AG.   None seems to understand that some of their potential constituents are not white, heterosexual, married Christian men with pretty wives, 2.5 children, and a white picket fence.  None seems to have a care for those who don’t fit the Stepford model.  Their idea of “conservative” seems to make 1950’s sitcoms look edgy (after all, none of those families ever made an issue out of going to church).
I’m supposed to go to Richmond on May 30th to select one of these folks to run.  I’m seriously doubting my ability to cast a ballot for any of them.
Published in: on March 3, 2009 at 11:37 pm  Comments (1)  

Senator Webb can’t read …

or, at least, he hires staff who can’t read.

Or COUNT, apparently.  I got THREE identical responses to ONE letter — identical right down to the control number: GUID#IA8280daa6-5b10-4f41-9083-c7fd92426844.

I guess I should be flattered he finally decided to start responding to constituents — it’s only been in the 111th Congress session that he’s begun doing so.

I’ve yet, though, to get a response that addresses the concerns I wrote about.

I wrote about Hillary’s appointment to the SecState position – not her financial dealings, which she’s proven she’ll hide at any cost, but her (and Salazar’s) holding the office in defiance of the Constitution.  He sent a form letter that he was satisfied she sufficiently divorced herself from Billy Boy’s fundraising.

I wrote about Eric Holder as Attorney General, and his having shown his disdain for individual rights.  Webb sent a form letter that Holder’s experience qualified him.

I wrote expressing dismay at the stimulus package.  He sent a form letter about how thrilled he was to support it at $100M less than proposed.

His “response” letters are something less targeted than mass market publications.

Published in: on February 27, 2009 at 6:45 pm  Leave a Comment  

Holy Crap, two Webb responses!

For someone who purports to be a leader, I am dismayed by the “everyone else did it” tone of this letter.  Better to tell me WHY you voted for or against someone.  Leaders don’t just do what everyone else did.

This is the second response I’ve had from Webb during the 111th.  Guess he realizes elections will be here sooner than he thinks.    Still waiting on responses to the 6-8 contacts I sent prior to the 111th.

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the nomination of Eric Holder to serve as U.S. Attorney General.

As you may know, the U.S. Senate confirmed Mr. Holder by a vote of 75 to 21 on February 2, 2009. There was a widespread consensus that Mr. Holder’s skill, knowledge, and professional experiences inside and outside of government all warranted his confirmation by the Senate.

Thank you once again for contacting me and my staff on this important matter. I hope that you will continue to share your views with us in the years ahead.

I would also invite you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.

Sincerely,
Jim Webb

United States Senator

So Holder’s a good guy, eh?  Note Webb never mentions his role in the Rich pardon, nor does he touch on Holder’s civil rights stance (i.e. restrict rights as much as possible until SCOTUS steps in).  He doesn’t cite a single characteristic or instance in which Holder obtained “skill, knowledge, and professional experiences …” nor does he mention character at all.

And whatever makes him think I’m his “friend” is a mystery.  I’m a constituent.   If I met him, we might become friends despite our philosophical differences, though I doubt it, as what I see from him is arrogance — not one of my favorite characteristics.

Is Jim Webb always this stupid?

As I’ve remarked time and again, I wrote Jim Webb and Mark Warner early on to oppose the nominations of Clinton and Salazar on constitutional grounds.

I guess I should be thrilled I received a reply from Webb?   Never mind that it IGNORED the issue I raised, and instead addressed an issue that I believe to be irrelevant because I have no faith in the character of Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Webb’s response:

Dear Ms. xxxxx:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the nomination of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State.  I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me.

On December 12, the Clinton Foundation and the Obama Presidential Transition Team signed a Memorandum of Understanding, which was designed to allay the concerns regarding President Clinton‘s activities with respect to the Clinton Foundation and Senator Clinton‘s ability to serve as Secretary of State.

President Clinton has published all of the Foundation’s past contributors, and agreed to publish the names of all future contributors  to his Foundation; to forego his solicitation of sponsorship funds to the Clinton Global Initiative; to incorporate CGI as an entity separate from his Foundation; to forego foreign gatherings of CGI; to forego foreign government contributions to CGI; and to have any new foreign government contributions and increases in foreign government contributions reviewed in advance by career ethics officials at the State Department. Since the signing of the MOU, the Clinton Foundation has volunteered the names of more than 200,000 donors.  This issue has been looked at carefully and the MOU will ensure that transparency is paramount and there will not be a conflict of interest.

As you may know, on January 21, 2009, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to confirm Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State.  I supported her nomination and believe Secretary Clinton is well qualified for the job.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I appreciate having the benefit of your views.  I would also invite you to visit my website at www.webb.senate.gov for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation.

Thank you once again for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Jim Webb

United States Senator

JW:nb

Please do not reply. This is not a working email address.

I’m not sure which I despise most — not responding, or responding to someone else’s concerns.

Sen. Warner fits right in

I have contacted Senators Webb and Warner three times already in the 111th Congress.  I urged them to do the right thing and oppose the nominations of Clinton and Salazar (per Article 1, Section VI, Para 2), and to oppose Holder on the grounds that he doesn’t understand civil liberties.

Warner hit the Democratic ground running, and showed why he’s a politician (emphasis and comments, of course, are mine):

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Obama’s nominees to serve in the executive branch.  I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Consititution [duh, yeah, I obviously read the Constitution, since I quoted the article which disqualifies Clinton and Salazar] provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Officers of the United States….”  As a former Chief Executive [politician speak — Regard me highly for I am he], I respect the constitutional authority and prerogative of the President, regardless of party, to select nominees for the executive branch who he believes will best serve the interest [so why select Holder?] of the American people.  I, also, take very seriously the Senate’s constitutional duty to render advice and consent on these nominations [if so, you would realize your duty to advise this is unconstitutional, despite the parliamentary games and the fact it’s been done before].

Again, thank you for writing.  I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind when these nominations reach the full Senate for consideration [He expects me to believe this?].

Three paragraphs to say nothing but “shut up and color”.

He’s the junior Senator.  He has to play “Mother, May I?” to some degree.  I had higher hopes.

At least he responded.  That’s more than Webb usually does.

It took him from 1/25/07 to 10/24/07

to fulfill his promise….

On October 24, 2007, Jim Webb finally signed on as a co-sponsor of S. 388.  Politically astute move.  Now he can say he co-sponsored legislation.  During his campaign, however, he promised to introduce and support.

I still wonder why, despite no fewer than six communications to him on my part, I have yet to receive even an acknowledgment of my interest in this issue. 

Maybe he’s trying to hide it from his mentor – anti-gun Warner – while placating the NRA.  What a hypocrite.

Only five more years to go.

Published in: on November 15, 2007 at 4:51 pm  Leave a Comment  

An Arrogant SOB – a politician – but, then, I repeat myself

Two words:  Jim Webb.  That’s right, the junior senator from Virginia.  Yes, a Democrat, but I doubt that matters much.

I preferred, and voted for, his opponent, but wasn’t heartbroken when Webb was elected.  His opponent showed a lot of class and bowed out rather than recount; the vote was that close.

Webb tried to court gun owners.  He promised to carry a bill to legalize carry in national parks.  Still waiting………   He claimed to support a national reciprocity – which means my concealed handgun permit is legal in your state, as long as I follow your state’s laws, just as my driver license is.

When Senator Thune of S. Dakota introduced such a bill, S.388, not only does Webb not champion it, he doesn’t even co-sponsor.  The worst part?  I’ve written Webb no fewer than FIVE times asking for his support, or at least his rationale.  He has sent me form letters on others issues I’ve addressed, but IGNORED this one.

He’s also decided he’s smarter than the military commanders he (should have) mentored and grown.  Now that it doesn’t affect his ability to do HIS job, he’s happy to sponsor legislation micromanaging the military by legislating deployment lengths.

What an ass.

Five more years to go.  Isn’t that a crime?

Published in: on September 6, 2007 at 5:49 pm  Leave a Comment