Virginia's Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Creigh Deeds, must be color blind -- he apparently cannot tell the difference between lavender and royal blue.
I just read his suicidal op-ed in this morning's Washington Post, in which, Walter Mondale-like, he acknowledges his desire to raise taxes. That kind of bold play may once have worked in deep blue states where liberal electorates prefer their liberal candidates to campaign on who's going to raise taxes higher ... but in a reddish-bluish-lavender state in play?
Not so much.
Stipulated: Virginia, long considered a solid red state (and why not? In the 12 elections between 1960-2004, it cast its electoral votes for the Democratic nominee for President precisely once), now may fairly be said to be in play -- in its last two gubernatorial elections and its last two U.S. Senate elections, it elected Democrats; in its last elections for the state senate, it gave Democrats control of the chamber; and last year it voted for Barack Obama for President.
But that is not to say, by any stretch of the imagination, that Virginia now may be safely called a "blue" state.
Its delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives is split, with six Democrats and five Republicans; and Republicans control the lower house of the state legislature by a healthy 55-43 margin, with two vacancies, and appear this fall to be poised to strengthen that advantage.
So let's call Virginia "lavender."
But Deeds, clearly, believes it is blue -- as blue as, say, Minnesota, which performed during the same 1960-2004 stretch as a mirror image of Virginia, casting its electoral votes for the Democratic nominee for President 11 times out of 12.
How else to explain it?
Let's read and translate the op-ed as we go along:
"The first job of the next governor of Virginia is to restore confidence in our economy, and the best way to do that is through fixing our state transportation system."
(Translation: I have to have some justification for a massive tax hike, and linking spending to transportation just might do the trick.)
"The day after I'm elected, I will begin assembling a bipartisan commission to craft a comprehensive transportation package."
(Translation: I still don't have an actual, what do you call it, "plan," so I'm hoping the old "bipartisan blue ribbon commission" dodge still has legs.)
"Let me be clear regarding taxes. I will sign a bill that is the product of bipartisan compromise that provides a comprehensive transportation solution."
(Translation: The @#$%^&! Republicans still control the House of Delegates, and are likely to pad their 55-43 margin further -- which means, by definition, that any plan that gets to my desk, should I be lucky enough to win, would have to have Republican votes, just to get through the lower house.)
"As a legislator, I have voted for a number of mechanisms to fund transportation, including a gas tax."
(Translation: the McDonnell campaign has been having too much fun at my expense these last weeks, reminding everyone of all those tax increases I voted for.)
"And I'll sign a bipartisan bill with a dedicated funding mechanism for transportation -- even if it includes new taxes."
(Translation: okay, by now something close to 50,000 people have seen this embarrassing YouTube video of me trying not to get boxed in on a tax increase, so I might as well acknowledge it: I will raise taxes!)
"To build a bipartisan consensus to find that new revenue, and to ensure the best chance of passage, all options for funding will be on the table."
(Translation: I hope you took advantage of that "Cash for Clunkers" program, because that's likely to be the last money you see from the government -- we're coming after everything if I win!)
"Bob McDonnell has pledged not to sign a transportation bill with new revenue."
(Translation: Why didn't I think of that? He just won, didn't he?)
"The majority of the money in the general fund goes to education (45.9 percent), with the rest to health and human resources (24.2 percent) and public safety (11.1 percent). I do not support taking funds from these critical priorities to pay for roads."
(Translation: I'm not about to take on the teachers' union or the public sector employee unions. I may have just acknowledged I plan to hike taxes, but I'm not stoopid.)
"My approach is honest, straightforward ..."
(Translation: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes. So will I. He won't tell you. I just did." God, I love the audacity of that bold admission of a tax hike to come. It's just so ... so ... so cleansing. Maybe one day they'll remember me with the same fondness we all remember Walter.)
Follow me on Twitter!
Comments
The title of this piece is all wrong. It should read:
"A Step-by-step Guide How to Misrepresent, Distort and Manipulate: Translating the Right Way"
Posted by: jimsepa
| September 24, 2009 11:58 AM
The author of this piece had demeaned the CQ with this year's Macaka moment.
The assumption that the American public cannot see the connection between government services and taxes has been exploited by borrow and spend Republicans for too long.
No state has lowered its expenditures either as a percentage of state GDP or in magnitude.
The GOP have claimed to support tax relief while nickel and diming the middle class taxpayers to death.
State services have been cut, infrastructure repair neglected and the wealthy have enjoyed tax breaks.
All at the behest of borrow and spend Republican majorities in the legislature and state house.
Deeds has had the political courage to state his plans for transportation improvement and his financing, forthrightly and clearly.
Let's hope that the Virginia voters are sophisticated enough to transcend Macaka type attacks like this author's and to vote for a fiscally sound and comprehensive transportation improvement plan.
Posted by: Robert Chapman
| September 24, 2009 8:19 PM
Post A Comment