Waldo Jaquith

After Kaine’s generous inclusion of Republicans in top appointments to his administration, there’s really no excuse for this. Kaine is really being bipartisan, sharing his executive power with Republicans. Refusing to confirm LeBlanc doesn’t really get the GOP anything. It’s not going to change a single iota of policy and it’s not as if their base is holding their feet to the fire over it. All this does, as best I can tell, is start a fight with a popular governor over nothing. Kaine is the one with the microphone right now. He’s already demonstrated that he’s able to set the issues and the agenda for the legislature. So far, he’s been kind enough to stick with issues that actually aren’t partisan and will generally endear supporters in the House and Senate to the folks back home.

As best I can tell, Virginia Republicans are taking a sort of Viet Cong approach to governance. Even when Kaine nominates Republicans – as in the case of Jim Dillard – they’ll shoot it down simply because it’s something they can do to their opponent that hurts his ability to govern. They oppose his popular growth-control measures simply because they were proposed by Tim Kaine. I am reminded of the scene in ‘Apocalypse Now’ where the guy is talking about the VC cutting off the arms of people who had received immunizations from American troops. It really doesn’t matter whether a piece of policy is helpful to Virginians or if a particular appointment is really significant to their agenda or base. The strategy is simply to oppose lest the opponent gain credit for successes.

There is a rough similarity to this on a national level in Democratic opposition to the Dubai port deal. However, I think it would be amiss to suggest that House Democrats have had anything resembling a strategy since Nancy Pelosi took the reins.

Is there some other dimension to this that I’m missing? Can a Republican explain it?

Posted by ATA on 7 March 2006 @ 11am

There is a rough similarity to this on a national level in Democratic opposition to the Dubai port deal.

Except that Republicans are just as opposed to the port deal as Democrats are.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 March 2006 @ 11am

BATTER UP!

Posted by Josh Chernila on 7 March 2006 @ 12pm

You know, I find it rather humorous that those (probably not including you, Waldo) who constantly attack those you deem far Right Republicans are having such a hissy fit about the House GOP’s position that LeBlanc is so far out of the mainstream that he should not be rewarded with such a position. If Kaine is entitled to LeBlanc, then Bush is entitled to virtually anyone to the left of David Duke for the Supremes.

And please don’t waste our time asserting that it’s “different.”

Posted by James Young on 7 March 2006 @ 12pm

I’ll take a swing.

But in the meantime two notes for the fine author Mr. Jaquith.

1. What kind of camera are you using, cos’ the pictures look great, really sharp.

2. Consider “date-lining” your posts so Lefty-Blogs can sort them to state and local.

Keep up the good work, and let me know when it’s my turn at bat.

Posted by Not Speaker Howell on 7 March 2006 @ 12pm

James, it is different. A SCOTUS judge who believes that all abortions should be legal at all times could have quite a sizable impact on the individual lives of millions Americans for decades to come. If the Secretary of the Commonwealth holds that same belief, it has no impact on anybody. In fact, the SoC’s beliefs don’t really have any impact on anybody. More to the point, LeBlanc’s pro-union stance has no impact on labor laws.

I certainly could not say the same of other other cabinet positions. If Patrick Gottschalk was as pro-union as LeBlanc, and Republicans had opposed Gottschalk, then I would have agreed that there was a legitimate dispute on which people of different beliefs may understandable disagree. But SoC? No way.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 March 2006 @ 12pm

To be honest, I really don’t care.

Kaine is the Governor — let him pack his cabinet with people he wants to work with.

That, of course, is a minority opinion…

Posted by Shaun Kenney on 7 March 2006 @ 1pm

I’m sure you can see the difference between a four-year cabinet position and a lifetime court appointment, James. Even conservative senators like Cuccinelli and Obenshain voted in favor of SJR 189 with Danny LeBlanc still in when it passed the Senate 40-0.

Gilmore was entitled to Boyd Marcus as chief of staff, and Marcus was running a Republican campaign firm targeting Democrats in the General Assembly during his tenure. Democrats have voted for objectionable Republican nominees since the cabinet system started in the 1970s. By killing the LeBlanc nomination, House Republicans are turning Virginia’s appointment process into a perenial partisan fight. When, in General Assembly sessions to come, our citizen legislature spends its precious time engaged in partisan bickering over nominees rather than conducting the business of the people, we will have the 2006 House Republican Caucus to thank.

Posted by David Englin on 7 March 2006 @ 1pm

“If Kaine is entitled to LeBlanc, then Bush is entitled to virtually anyone to the left of David Duke for the Supremes.
And please don’t waste our time asserting that it’s “different.””

I was thinking along the same lines: but from a different direction.

I mean, isn’t it blatantly obvious how idiotic this is, coming from the party, that for the last 6 years has turned it’s self blue in the face by screaming about the executive prerogative in nominating who ever the hell they want?

But, I suppose they only mean REPUBLICAN executives. Oh, I get it . . . they call that something, don’t they?

And, I suppose that is only when the conversation is about judges who are appointed FOR LIFE ! (and as Waldo says above)

Anyway, doesn’t the US constitution say something about advise and consent?

NOW, We are talking about a cabinet member . . . when was the last time a cabinet nomination, nationally or statewide was killed?

Crazy kids.

Posted by Jon-P on 7 March 2006 @ 1pm

James,

SCOTUS is a pretty bad example to use. Judges have the authority to dictate policy. Staff appointments do not. A better comparison would be that if George W. Bush wants to nominate someone as wacko as John Ashcroft to be his Attorney General, then Democrats should go along with it. Which we did, even though we had a Senate majority at the time.

In fact, I don’t think that Democrats refused a single one of Bush’s requested appointments when they were running the Senate. Can you name a single nomination which Bush made that Democrats torpedoed when they controlled the Senate? Because I can’t. We gave him Bush benefit of the doubt and acknowledged the basic wisdom of allowing an executive to assemble the team that he wants within his own branch of government. And any torpedoed nominations since that time have failed because of lack of Republican support.

Posted by ATA on 7 March 2006 @ 2pm

“Can you name a single nomination which Bush made that Democrats torpedoed when they controlled the Senate? Because I can’t.”

If you include appointments to the federal bench, there were countless pending nominees that were held up by the then Democratic controlled Senate and were continued to be held up when the Democrats were in the minority.

“If so, I welcome that overreach on the part of House Republicans. They’re handing Governor Kaine — and the media — a bat, which will be surely used to pummel them into submission and, inevitably, more losses in next year’s elections.”

While I agree that the GOP was a bit unwise to refuse LeBlanc’s nomination, I utterly disagree with the above statemetn from Waldo. First, this will not be a campaign issue 18 months from now (2007); to assert that this vote is a “bat” that Kaine can use to win elections displays an amazing amount of naiveté. The only areas of the state that this issue will affect the GOP is in heavily unionized areas of Southwest Virginia in which the Democrats already hold legislative seats. If anything, this vote will energize the GOP Base as it is fractured right now with disillusionment as a result of the pro-tax GOP state Senate.

Second, do not discount that the business community was up in arms about LeBlanc’s nomination. At a time when Warner and Kaine had successfully split the business community from the GOP on taxes, (note Warner nor Kaine support raising income taxes to progressive levels precisely because they don’t want to alienate this area of support), the House saw this as an opportunity to regain favor with what was a reliable Republican voting block.

In fact, his can help Kaine in the long run; maintaining close ties with the business community was one of Warner’s crowning achievements as a Democratic Governor. In Warner’s case he was aided by being a successful businessman, entrepreneur and venture capitalist himself. Kaine’s pro-business credentials are not as readily apparent and from the beginning I felt this was a foolish nomination; LeBlanc’s long and acrimonious relationship with many leaders in the business community and public disdain for the Right to Work Law made him a potential lightening rod for the Kaine Administration.

In the end this has very little impact; it will be part of the next two weeks’ local news cyle and then be forgotten. By April 1, no one will care or talk about this vote and it will have little, if any affect on the November 2007 elections. However, long term Kaine could benefit by having a more mainstream SOC rather than having one who had a propensity to make outrageous statements to the media that could damage Kaine’s relations with the Virginia business community.

Posted by politicalopinion on 7 March 2006 @ 2pm

To be honest, I’m not interested in debating the prognostications (mine or others’) of what the fallout will be of a LeBlanc demurral. Let’s just wait and see what happens; who is right and who is wrong will become clear later.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 March 2006 @ 2pm

Politicalopnion,

Sorry, I should have been more clear: non-judicial appointments. That’s what I meant to imply when I said ‘within the executive’s own branch of government.’ Judicial nominations *should* be fought over tooth and nail on the basis of ideology. Judges aren’t supposed to be part of an executive’s administration. But if Bush wants to, say, name his college roommate as secretary of commerce, fine with me. It’s his administration.

You are right that this isn’t going to have much of an impact on non-Richmond politics. Most voters have no idea this is even happening. It does establish a needlessly negative relationship between the GOP and the Governor which I can’t imagine is going to do Virginia or the GOP much good. Kaine has been willing to compromise and have an actual bipartisan government that would have been a great thing for Virginia. This really doesn’t hurt Tim Kaine. It just pissed him off. Nor does it really affect GOP interests in the slightest whether LeBlanc is confirmed or not. The net effect is one that sets the GOP up for future reprisals from Tim Kaine when he would otherwise have been inclined to hold his fire. It’s a net loss, if not a major one.

Posted by ATA on 7 March 2006 @ 4pm

politicalopinion,

This in its self is not that important. But it is possible that this can be the beginnings of an obstructionists narrative: the hyper partisan Republican House, at every turn getting in the way of the popular Governor, and the common sense Senate. Things seem to be shaping up that way.

Posted by Jon-P on 7 March 2006 @ 5pm

What kind of camera are you using, cos’ the pictures look great, really sharp.

It’s a Canon Digital Rebel, the 8MP model. These particular pictures were taken using their 75-300mm zoom lens, manually focused.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 March 2006 @ 6pm

Waldo, as you might expect, I have a slightly different opinion.

This guy was about as large a stick in the eye of the majority as it gets. Was it really expected that the Republican leadership would really roll over?

They did the right thing. But then again, that’s not really news coming from me.

Posted by JR on 7 March 2006 @ 7pm

Personnel IS policy, ATA.

And which Bush are you talking about? John Tower was rejected for SecDef by his own “Club” for Bush 41, though I’d say that it was — completley unintendedly — a net positive, since we got Dick Cheney, instead.

Posted by James Young on 8 March 2006 @ 9am

How many appointments did the GOP-controlled legislature deny to Warner? How many have they denied Kaine?

Obviously, this one went down the way it did for a reason. That’s why the legislature has a voice in some appointments, in case y’all forgot.

And perhaps — just perhaps — the governor wouldn’t have to suffer this embarrassment if he were honoring his campaign commitments. (“I’m not going to be in for tax increases because we did it in 2004, and we’re going to have to live within our means.” ~ Candidate Kaine, Nov. 2005).

Posted by I.Publius on 8 March 2006 @ 10am