Cuccinelli Speaks

I know a lot of you don't get these emails, so for your education and/or entertainment, here's the recent missive from Senator Ken Cu.... er... "Not Dick Saslaw"

Dear Fellow Republicans,

Well, it’s been one ‘interesting’ week here in the Senate of Virginia.  Potts got protected, Virginia got to see what Democrat rule would look like, Mick Staton is in a sprint, and on taxes, I’m afraid to say, it may be 2004 redux (that’s bad for you newbies).

Potts and Pans

You will remember that Senator Russ Potts, who ran for his Senate seat as a Republican, declared himself to be an Independent, and ran against our party’s nominee for Governor.  He swept to an awe-inspiring 2% of the vote this past November (who are these people anyway?  I think they are usually called “the margin of error”).  The rules of the Senate state (err, used to state) that “should any Senator, during his term of office, cease to be a member of the political party of which he was a member at the time of his election, he shall be deemed, thereby, to have forfeited all committee memberships . . .”   

While it might seem obvious that declaring yourself an Independent would remove you from the Republican Party, it is apparently only obvious to people NOT in the Senate.  There was an attempt at a compromise, which failed.  The thought in all corners was that Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling would be asked to rule on this matter, once he returned from being sworn in last Saturday.  In an apparent effort to avoid that situation, the Republican floor leader introduced surprise amendments to the Senate rules on Friday morning, the day before Saturday’s inaugural ceremonies.  I asked for the proposed rule changes to go by for the day, given that the rules committee had never voted on them and 39 of us had never seen them until that morning.  This ordinary and traditional courtesy (something rumored to be customary in the regal Senate) was denied.  (It’s funny how many of these alleged ‘traditions’ of the Senate simply disappear when Conservatives attempt to invoke them…)

The rules change inserted a provision requiring a 2/3 majority in the Senate, 27 votes, to declare that a member has left his party.  Sen. Newman pointed out this oddity in his questioning of the patron… the patron had no response to address that problem.  This has left us in the rather odd situation where a member can declare openly that he is no longer a member of his party, but without 27 Senators voting to confirm this, he will be deemed to still be a member of the party he is trying to leave (or has already left).  In other words, we now need Democrats to “confirm” that a Republican has left the Republican party… if this makes no sense to you, then you and I came to the same conclusion!  Welcome to the Senate of Virginia!

I wish I could report that these votes were even close.  But that is not the case.  I was writing and putting in amendments as fast as I could read the bill and write amendments, but most of the votes on the amendments were 36-3, with an occasional 35-4 vote.  Senator Jay O’Brien and Senator Mark Obenshain consistently joined me in voting to alter the proposed rule changes, and Senator Steve Martin joined us on the key votes.

Not a surprising outcome, but still shocking.  By the time we got back to our office over the weekend, we had received over 70 completely unsolicited emails related to the Potts matter from all over Virginia, and in an absolute first for our office, there was not a single negative email. Amazing! Thanks to all of you for your kind words of encouragement.

By the way, the rule change that was enacted further guts any significance of the political parties in the Senate, an outcome that I pointed out to no avail.  C’est la vie (you know it’s bad if I’m talking French).

Good News, They’re Crazier Than We Are!

Over in the House of Delegates, in a lopsided 73-22 vote, the Constitutional Amendment protecting traditional marriage in Virginia was passed. Once approved by the Senate, this measure will go to the voters for their approval in November. But in a stunning display of what Virginia would be in for if the Dems got control of the House back, all 5 new Democrat delegates from Northern Virginia voted against traditional marriage. Freshman Delegates Bulova, Marsden, Caputo, Poisson, and Englin joined fellow Northern Virginia Democrats Amundson, Brink, Hull. Moran, Plum, Sickles, Scott, Watts, Eisenberg and Ebbin in voting “No” on protecting marriage between a man and a woman. This means that fully ½ of the “No” votes came out of Northern Virginia. David Englin felt the need to deliver a 20 minute diatribe before voting no.  So… who’s out of the mainstream here?

Republicans may not be perfect, but by golly Virginia, look what we’re protecting you from!

Go Team!

In the good news department are special elections.  Ryan McDougal squeaked by with 81% of the vote to take Bill Bolling’s Senate seat, and Monday night Mick Staton won the Republican primary in the 33^rd District in Loudoun & Fairfax Counties (Bill Mims old District).  Mick will be facing a Democrat in a special election to be held on January 31^st.  Mick was able to pull out a very impressive 56% vote tally in a 4-way race to win the GOP nomination, and he will be a strong candidate to keep this seat Republican in the special election.  However, with our miserable performance in the November elections in NoVa, the Dems are coming after this seat with everything they’ve got (too bad they had to import a candidate for the race.  He moved into the district on December 20^th to run).

The turnout in for the nomination was spectacular, with over 3000 voters showing up to cast their votes.  This is a great sign, especially at this time of year.  It shows the strength and vitality of the GOP in this must-win district.  If any of you have any time in the next two weeks, please plan to help Mick Staton’s campaign.  To help Mick, click here.

They are doing volunteer phone calling and door knocking, among other things, and they need lots of help!  Please help us hold onto this seat.

It was reported in several blogs that voters at the GOP firehouse primary were required to sign the Republican Party pledge before they were permitted to vote in the nomination.  Many of them complained, some did not vote (which is the point of course), and some voted while clearly intending not to abide by the pledge, including one elected Republican (sound familiar?).

COMING SOON

Unfortunately, a big, Big, BIG tax package.  At least, that’s what I expect.  I am waiting to see a package bigger than the 2004 tax hike.  I wish I were kidding, when I hear more, you’ll know!

I’ll try to get these Compasses out faster and more frequently as the session goes on.  Right now, it’s 3 a.m. and we’ve been scrounging to work on as many budget cuts as we can find, as they are due by 5 p.m., so I need to sign off.

Sincerely,

Senator Ken Cuccinelli

Comments

[Rtwng Extrmst]

If Ken is talking like that about the budget, it must be really bad! He's a very optimistic person usually. This must mean the Senate indeed plans to increase taxes dramatically. I suspect the same group that headed it in '04 is behind it now.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

I did enjoy his barb about Senate tradition. I remember Saslaw's comments on the importance of following tradition in the matter of Potts when they had the vote last week. I guess tradition only matters when it helps your cause.

[LiebJef]

David Englin is the man!

[A Voter]

Ken's a great guy!

[SE VA MWC Alum]

I am glad that the marriage amendment passed. But Cuccinelli is in error on Potts-He declared himself an independent republican

[Willis]

Ken Cuccinelli can kiss my ass.

[t]

Ken,
Don't listen to the criticism. Keep up the good work and always vote pro-life. God Bless you Ken.

Ken, please continue to protect traditional marriage. I do not want to see my white bretheren marrying any of those colored people. I'm sickened by the depraved turn our culture has been taking. We need to go back to the good old days, when those kinds of people knew their place.

Unfortunately Ken is my Senator; however, he does NOT represent my views. I look forward to being able to vote against the amendment protecting traditional marriage.

Ten Bribbett

[Virginia Centrist]

Ken -

God bless you.

Love,
Virginia Centrist

[Delegate David Englin]

Funny how a five-minute floor speech defending the rights of my fellow citizens has become a "20 minute diatribe" to some! (I guess I should feel flattered.) Read the speech for yourself at http://www.davidenglin.org. I'm still waiting for answers to the questions I posed. Those of us who voted against writing discrimination into the Virginia constitution are as "out of the mainstream" as the white politicians who voted against popular Jim Crow laws.

[James Young]

Gee, Dave, and here I thought we discriminated on the basis of inappropriate behavior all the time. Or can we expect you to propose blanket repeal of the other criminal laws, as well? "Discrimination" isn't always a bad thing, particularly when it's "discrimination" between good ideas/behavior and bad ideas/behavior.

It's not "writing discrimination into the Virginia [C]onstitution." It's preserving the integrity of the language and the meaning of the word marriage. But why should we expect you to have any more regard for the word "marriage" than you do for the word "discrimination."

[Willis]

Leave it to James Young to defend legislative discrimination.

You go Dave. Don't worry about James here. He is proud to be prejudiced, and brags about it all the time.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

SE VA MWC Alum,

Please explain how declaring yourself an "independent republican" is the same as being a member of the GOP. Potts had to declare himself as an "independent" in order to get on the ballot with his petition signature efforts. He declared by undertaking this effort and the Senate backed off.

BTW, Potts has wasted no time taking advantage of his Chairmanship by killing some common sense legislation on his committe this year that was introduced by Sen. Emmett W. Hanger. The bill would have closed a loophole in out of state adoptions of Virginia born children by homosexual couples. The law as it now stands by court order requires the state of Virginia to recognize homosexual marriages from other states. This my friends is why the constitutional amendment is necessary.

[A Voter]

I always appreciate your words of wisdom, Rtwng!

Keep up the good work!

I actually saw Potts' declaration of candidacy forms. He definitely wrote INDEPENDENT in the box for party affiliation. NOT Independent Republican, just INDEPENDENT. He declared himself something other than a Republican, it's just sad that the majority of the Senate is too afraid to vote against the leadership and kick Potts out!

[David Weintraub]

I regret to say that Senator Cuccinelli is lying.

He certainly received a negative email from me, and it is simply not possible to believe there were not others.

What is the benefit of lying about this, when it can so easily be exposed?

[David Weintraub]

More about lying: Ken and James have failed to note that their very, very urgent "marriage" amendment actually would prohibit the recognition of any rights or obligations between any two unmarried people, gay or straight. That's a little different from simply "defining marriage," don't you think?

And for some reason, they really don't want that information to appear on the ballot that would go before the people of Virginia. So much for "trusting the voters." They don't trust the voters enough to permit them to know what it is they are voting for.

Could it be that they know perfectly well that most Virginians wouldn't vote for something so extreme and punitive if they knew what it actually said?

Those who voted against the current language of this spectacularly bad amendment did so because they think the voters have a right to be informed, not manipulated.

[Rtwng Extrmst]

Mr. Weintraub,

Unless you know when Mr. Cuccinelli got back to his office, you cannot say he is lying.

[Not "A Voter"]

I guess the GOP has no room for dissent; looks like the proverbial big tent is shrinking into a windowless closet. Rtwng, can you say Mr. Weintraub didn't send his email before the weekend? Didn't think so.

[A Voter]

Heh, I'm just happy that I have so many fans!

Not "me", can you say that David sent the email beforehand, and that Ken received the message before sending the message? Didn't think so.

David & Not "me",

Why are you both against letting the voters decide how marriage and other such unions should be defined? If people agree with your twisted and perverted ideals, which would erode one of the most fundamental institutions of our society, then they are free to vote against the amendment.

[A Voter]

Oh, that was confusing. Try this:

Not "me", can you say that David sent his email beforehand, and that Ken received that message before sending his Compass email to his constituents? Didn't think so.

[David]

According to Too Conservative, that Compass email was sent yesterday, the 19th. The Senate vote was on the 13th. But sure, continue stretching credulity with your explanations.

Weintraub: what was your negative email about? the marriage vote ?

[Delegate David Englin]

James, et al: Please at least have the integrity to read the amendment, which does much more than merely define marriage as between one man and one woman:

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

Even if you have no qualms about discriminating against gay people (BTW, being gay is a state of being, not merely a "behavior") you should understand before you vote on this in November that it will also harm unmarried straight couples. Ohio passed this same amendment, and now several domestic violence cases are in litigation because enforcing domestic violence laws in cases involving unmarried male-female couples requires the state to recognize "rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

Sadly, proponents of this amendment don't even have the courage to reveal the amendment's full purpose on the ballot in November. As it stands, here's the question that will appear on the ballot:

"Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state, in part, that 'only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions' and to add provisions relating to the legal status of other relationships?"

So the 56% of Virginians who are okay with civil unions and domestic partnerships will be deceived into outlawing them because any reasonable person reading only the ballot question will believe he or she is merely voting to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Willis]

Prediction: James Young will make an argument in black and white terms, rejecting the nuanced approach of Dave Englin.

"Who cares if the ballot question is dishonest and/or not fully representative of the bill??? It is important to set legislative precedent that the people of Virginia want marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman!!!" (even though that precedent already exists, along with the rest of Virginia's heavily discriminatory past).

That is my prediction. Have at it, James!!!

[Ken Cuccinelli]

For the record, having had David Weintraub's blog entry brought to my attention, I asked my staff to go back through the 70 emails re the Potts situation/rule change. In fact, Mr. Weintraub is right, we did get his negative email on that subject last weekend. His subject line was virtually identical to an entire batch of emails that were positive, so it got shoved in the positive count. My apologies.
Thus, the count of emails over last weekend on the Potts rule change was 69-1, but Mr. Weintraub's email kept it from being our first-ever 'shutout' in my four years. I guess that 'first' will just have to wait.
And now back to our regular programming...

[Willis]

I don't entirely believe you, Ken. But that's ok, I'd never vote for you anyway.

[David]

Of course my email was concerning the Potts vote - that's the topic of this post. I'm afraid I have to agree with Willis here.

David Englin: "So the 56% of Virginians who are okay with civil unions and domestic partnerships will be deceived into outlawing them because any reasonable person reading only the ballot question will believe he or she is merely voting to define marriage as between one man and one woman."

This is exactly what was done in Georgia, and many people are now sorry that they voted for it. How can anyone claim that this stunt is democratic? Thank God there are at least people like you willing to take a moral stand on this.