Waldo Jaquith

My next book:

Coercive Ignorance and the fall of the RPV.

Look for it in paperback.

Posted by Josh Chernila on 10 February 2006 @ 12pm

So, you’ve been in Richmond for a while? I thought I saw a ray of sunshine in the eastern sky…. heh, heh.

The Tramp

Posted by saddletramp on 10 February 2006 @ 12pm

I understand that the Republicans keep a list of people they will seek revenge against in a golden safe at the Obenshain Center. Even as we speak, a College Republican is adding the name “Waldo Jaquith” to that list with one of those big, fluffy feather pen-quill things . . .

Posted by Not Speaker Howell on 10 February 2006 @ 12pm

I must get my name added to that list.

Posted by Adam Sharp on 10 February 2006 @ 1pm

I agree with your post. I think this is the one of the reasons Northern Virginia voters are abandoning the GOP faster than they can blink a hateful eye. But the even bigger, more substantive reason their majority is endangered, is that they continue to dismiss and discount real issues that are affecting people’s lives up here, namely at this point, traffic. The latest House vote on the Kaine plan is NOT going to help Dave Albo, Tim Hugo, Vincent Callahan, Tom Rust, Joe May, Bob Marshall, Michelle McQuigg, Jeff Frederick, or Harry Parrish. Are they all going to lose? Probably not, but they continue to earn demotions of respect from Northern Virginians. And as much as the rest of the state’s legislators seem to love to continue sticking us in the eye up here, it will eventually come back around.

Just ask Earl. He gets it. Why don’t downstate GOP legislators? (Or some of our own NoVA GOP legislators, for that matter?).

Posted by Doug in Mount Vernon on 10 February 2006 @ 1pm

If they actually took retaining their majority very, very seriously, they’d nominate candidates who appeal to voters in the district instead of conservative ideologues.

Posted by Jim E-H on 10 February 2006 @ 2pm

I think the post is a little overblown. Jim should not be the least surprised. Republicans can say — who stabbed whom first? Paybacks are hell.

Posted by Not Michael Golden on 10 February 2006 @ 8pm

So William & Mary is to be punished?

Republicans in the House have carried out a political vendetta to the detriment of a Virginia university. That’s pathetic.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 10 February 2006 @ 8pm

Dillard is a great guy, but somehow W&M will survive. Loyalty should count for something in politics.

Posted by Not Michael Golden on 10 February 2006 @ 9pm

When a school requests a BoV appointment, and a governor makes an appointment, there must be a truly extraordinary reason not to make that appointment. I cannot see how political infighting possibly justifies such an action.

This is a classic case of a partisanship overcoming the public good.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 10 February 2006 @ 10pm

When did William and Mary request him?

Posted by Ben on 10 February 2006 @ 10pm

Well, maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but between this:

Dillard’s ties to the nation’s second-oldest college run deep — one of his grandfathers served as rector, and he is a graduate.

Dillard, who was unavailable for comment, was at a meeting of the university board when the House took its action. Rector Susan Magill called Dillard’s service invaluable and news of the House action “extremely distressing,” college spokesman William T. Walker said. He said the college would find other ways for Dillard to serve his alma mater.

and this:

The College of William and Mary’s Board of Visitors on Friday unanimously approved a resolution commending James H. Dillard II, whose confirmation to the board was denied by his former Republican colleagues in the House of Delegates.

The board lavishly praised Dillard in its seven-paragraph resolution.

“The College of William and Mary has indeed grown better due to Jim’s friendship, stewardship, and leadership; its Board of Visitors will be the poorer without his voice,” the resolution says.

“His unwavering principle, courage, and conviction, will–as it has throughout his life–find a way to affect us for the good _ and his example will continue to shine bright for our students, his colleagues, and all the citizens of Virginia.”

I’m gonna say that W&M wanted him appointed.

I mean, if that’s how they treat people that they don’t want, I’m thinking that people that they do want get hookers and iPods, at a bare minimum.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 10 February 2006 @ 10pm

We’ll do fine without him down here. They’ll find someone else.

Posted by joe on 10 February 2006 @ 11pm

I’d be genuinely surprised if anyone else was seriously surprised that the Republican’s play dirty hardball. It’s part of the overall problem with politics. This sort of petty crap, doesn’t benefit anyone, and is just a distraction from any real issues and a waste of everyone’s time.

And I’d say the same if all the party affiliations were reversed.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 11 February 2006 @ 1am

Waldo, that was all after the fact. There’s no indication that William and Mary requested that Mark Warner appoint him, only that they made nice statements after he was booted.

Posted by Ben on 11 February 2006 @ 3pm

Where did they get the knife, Waldo? Did they pull it out of Chris Craddock’s back?

Posted by James Young on 11 February 2006 @ 3pm

Hoffritz.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 11 February 2006 @ 3pm

There’s no indication that William and Mary requested that Mark Warner appoint him, only that they made nice statements after he was booted.

Hookers ‘n’ iPods it is.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 11 February 2006 @ 3pm

So he stabs his party in the back, and they’re supposed to reward him with a plum position? Please.

It’s reaching to say that W&M is being “punished.” Those are figurehead positions anyway. Is there any gubernatorial appointment that’s more bought and sold? How many non-millionaires sit on them? Wilder’s appointment of Patricia Kluge to the UVA board comes to mind.

Posted by Sean Kittenger on 11 February 2006 @ 5pm

The Virginia legislature is not the place for these petty games of “teaching lessons” and partisan vengeance. These people are elected to do the people’s business. Let’s see them get on with it.

Posted by Harry Landers on 11 February 2006 @ 11pm

That’s quite a sentiment, Harry, and I agree with it. It’s important to “the people’s business” that treachorous hacks who betray those who elected them not be rewarded for their perfidy.

Posted by James Young on 12 February 2006 @ 3pm

treachorous (sic) hacks who betray those who elected them = partisan

Posted by Harry Landers on 12 February 2006 @ 3pm

“treachorous hacks who betray those who elected them”

ClosetedJames: exactly who of Mr. Dillard’s constituents were betrayed by his decision to endorse his legislative aide? If he had endorsed that loon Golden, would he have betrayed the Democrats who crossed-party lines to vote for him because he was not cut from Golden’s cloth of lunacy?

Posted by Not Ben on 12 February 2006 @ 8pm

Not Ben felt the need to attack my sexual preference. My wife of 16+ years got quite a laugh out of that.

Quite adult, coward. Projection, perhaps?

And by “those who elected them,” I’m referring to Conservative Republicans who held their noses and voted for/supported him simply because he had an “R” next to his name.

Posted by James Young on 13 February 2006 @ 9pm

ClosetedJames: why does Dillard have any more obligation to conservative Republicans who supported him than Democrats who supported him too? He was elected to serve his entire district, something he did well enough to consistently win easily.

Posted by Not Ben on 18 February 2006 @ 5pm