What goes around comes around: Bob McDonnell to resign as part of plea agreementPolitics

The man who pushed out the RPV chairman over trumped up corruption charges while running for governor is currently in the middle of finalizing a plea agreement which includes his resignation as governor.  More to come soon.

Article was posted after two people independently shared the story.

Multiple more sources confirming plea agreement is definitely being finalized.

UPDATE 12:32am 7/7/13 The Governor’s office is denying any reports of the Governor’s resignation:

Screen Shot 2013-07-07 at 12.25.53 AM

Screen Shot 2013-07-07 at 12.26.03 AM

Screen Shot 2013-07-07 at 12.35.58 AM

 

UPDATE 7:48pm 7/7/13

More sources have confirmed last night and today that there is a plea agreement being finalized. Whether agreeing to resign is part of the plea agreement or the obvious immediate result of it is uncertain, but I am becoming more convinced as I talk to more people that there is a plea agreement and the governor will resign.  It is a sad time for the commonwealth, the party, and someone who I and many others had regarded as the second best governor of the modern era.

  • Turbocohen

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

    • MD Russ

      My thoughts exactly. Question: isn’t a plea bargain something that you negotiate after charges have been filed or an indictment has been unsealed? To my knowledge, nothing like that has happened to Governor McDonnell and the FBI investigation is still underway. So why would he be discussing a plea bargain at this stage? Of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    • Constitutional_Reset

      Well, it appears that ‘Constitutional Reset’ has been band from commenting also. If I could get to a grand jury some 44 felony indictments on Bob McDonnell would be fit to issue.

  • Smith

    Bolling becomes gov, runs for reelection which is possible under VA const since 1st was not full term and wins because he’s far better and more qualified than any other candidates

    • David Dull

      “far better”
      akakakakakakakakakakak!

      • frank papcin

        you would rather have someone that is pro union?–in bed with OBAMA?–another yes man of the democratic party that shipped jobs to china instead of VIRGINIA?–well I know what you’ll vote in November,–hope the rest of you don’t feel the same way.

  • Jeanine Martin

    My only concern, how does this effect Ken Cuccinelli? Will he also be tainted by this scandal?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=141304249 Sarah Jones

      If we’re lucky, yes.

  • Chris

    I’m not sure how Bill Bolling runs for governor unless he runs third
    party. In that case, I doubt he will win, but will instead split the
    Republican Party. Smith, forget who you think is more qualified, if
    that happens, you best be prepared for four years of Governor McAuliffe.

    • Rick_Sincere

      The filing deadline to run for governor was June 11.

      • Smith

        True, but after he’s been gov for 3 1/2 months a third party run could be viable… He would win moderate and some harder Ds, the establishment GOPers who don’t want Cucci and independents

        • Keith Drake

          The filing deadline to run for governor was June 11. Any party. Only path for BB now is as a write-in.

          • David Dull

            Apparently “Smith” can’t read a calendar or understand basic logistics ;)

          • billbo_66

            David Im a liberal and eating this up….But I noticed the date was wrong too, LOL. REally why didn’t the gop have a primary. Bolling would have won and he win the moderate vote and the governors office. Cooch cant get the center, so he cant win

    • Smith

      Sure he’d “split” the GOP ticket like this: 35-40% of the convention-going, state central-supporting and NASCAR-watching Tea Party members would vote for Ken while the mainstream 65-60% of the VA GOP would go for Bolling in a third-party bid… Not to mention he’d win enough Dems and all the independents to certifiably secure the election

      • David Dull

        “NASCAR-watching Tea Party members”
        Yeah, actually I don’t watch NASCAR, but I bet you’re really good at gluing your face to your propaganda box so you don’t miss one minute of FOX news like a good little statist slave ;)

        I’m so proud of not being a member of the “mainstream” sheep herd.

        • Smith

          @ David: Would love a full response to this. I guess I’ll entertain personal attacks though I’m not sure why you decided to invest so much energy into specifically my posts and since ad hominem is fundamentally the reason people hate politics (you’re a real trend-setter!). Let me know how much good the Tea Party has done the Republicans in 10 years when it has successfully divided the GOP and in turn made VA solid blue after burning out voters on a gubernatorial candidate who is actually just as bad on the right as T-Mac is on the left. Do you really believe the Tea Party will cultivate a magnificent revolution of “renewed” constitutional principles that will unify the Party and lead the GOP to winning more elections or do you just like operating under the delusion that a more constructionist, extreme interpretation & application of the Constitution coupled with an even more diminished focus on working with Democrats and establishment Republicans is best for the US? Or do you even give any thought to what’s best for the country as a whole? Last one: Do you believe the Tea Party single handily has the ability to solve every problem facing our nation? Because if so I guess the Tea Party actually doesn’t have to work with anyone else- all the stupid mainstream Republicans should just get out of the way already and let you all take over! I know it’ll be hard for you to answer those questions because regardless of your responses it points to why the Tea Party is a terrible thing for Republicans post-2012: Obstinance.

          P.S. I’m curious to know how you think candidates like EW Jackson serve a long-term purpose in the progression of American Politics.

      • Eric Futterman

        If Bolling runs Dems won’t vote for him. Some may have if he had started a few months ago. This will split the ticket and continue the war the Republicans will continue to have with the Frankenstein’s monster of hatred, religious bigotry and economic greed that is the Tea Party movement.

  • Paul Blair

    So this was what McDonnell meant in 2009 when he told Bolling he’d help him become Governor next? Gotcha.

  • billbo_66

    I hope this is true

  • John

    Sabato just tweeted saying this is not true…

    • Jeanine Martin

      How would a democrat like Sabato have any inside information?

      • odypoly

        The sad, staid, ignorant Right Wing mindset in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen.

  • Rick_Sincere

    WCAV-TV in Charlottesville reports on Twitter that rumors that Governor McDonnell has resigned are being denied by spokesman Tucker Martin: https://twitter.com/CBS19/status/353729414850281472

    • Jerel C. Wilmore

      Is Tucker Martin still part of McDonnell’s inner circle? Besides, the post only claims that McDonnell is negotiating his resignation, not that he has resigned. I guess we’ll have to wait for the truth, one way or the other.

    • Jeanine Martin

      Of course they are going to deny it if the deal hasn’t yet been inked.

  • Keith Drake

    Larry Sabato is good at predicting the past … his record prognosticating are questionable. He’s likely merely passing along the official position from Tucker Martin. (“Yes, I know for a fact that George Allen said the ‘N-word’ …. well, er … somebody told me they thought he had. Yeah, that’s it.”)

    • David Richardens

      …and Willie Douche is any better?

      ROFLCOPTER

      • Keith Drake

        Probably.

    • dswx

      Sabato is a GOPer who tries to protray himself as being neutral. But if you read his weekly blog it is quite apparent whose side he is on.

      • Jeanine Martin

        Hahaha, Larry Sabato is NOT a republican. He’d be insulted if anyone thought that he was. He’s a democrat political scientist professor. Is there any other kind of poli sci teacher?

  • frank papcin

    If bolling wanted to be governor,–why didn’t he run for it as a republican when he was supposed to?–sour grapes!- why is he trying to split the republican party now?–trying to insure a democratic win again?–just who does this person want to be in the governor’s office?–him or any democratic?

    Is this the nature of all of the republican party?–ME OR NOBODY IN MY PARTY!–maybe that’s why we lost the presidency?–there wasn’t much support around here.–yes I was there with ROMNEY at his rallies.–gave out his literature bought his shirts, sent money to his many campaign offices.–but never saw much enthusiasm around the republican party.–IF we don’t stand together–we will surely lose apart.

    • disqus_YbB9tbvvLq

      The Republican Party chose a Convention Nomination for Governor of Virginia 2013 because moderates show up in Primaries.

      After all, Primaries were a Progressive Era Reform.

      • frank papcin

        I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE CONVENTION WAS OPEN TO ALL REPUBLICANS THAT CARED ENOUGH TO GET INVOLVED?–I really think it would be better for a election for all the republicans in the state to have a say.–I didn’t chose the way it was done. but at least I cared enough to be part of something,–which is a lot better then what so many so called republicans chose to do by staying away –there was supposed to be 13 thousand people there?–where were they?–too busy crying?–complaining?–feeling sorry for themselves?
        I WISH THEY ALL SHOWED UP AND MADE THEIR VOICES HEARD!
        really never considered myself a progressive and anyone I know would agree.–to me progressive is the same as liberal, and I was never called a liberal by anyone in my life.– SAID TOO MUCH FOR PEOPLE THAT DON’T CARE ENOUGH TO BE BOTHERED.

        • MD Russ

          frank,

          Did you know that this blog comment tool has a feature that allows you to edit your comment after it has been posted? I suggest that you try it WITHOUT YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY ON.

          Seriously, dude. No one will take your comments seriously when you post like an angry idiot. Take that shit over to Smurf Virginia.

  • john harvie

    Ever since Bob M’s interviews with Tony Macrini some years ago I’ve had some real questions about his judgment and forthrightness.

  • Warmac9999

    The corruption is but one element of this situation. Bob M. lied about his conservative credentials and sold out the republican base. I hope he is done politically. I gave him a great deal of support and he repaid it with a slap.

    • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

      How does one lie about ones conservative credentials? Bob had conservative credentials and that’s what he ran on. Those weren’t lies.

      You can disagree with him and question his ethics, but the charges that he lied about his conservative credentials is ridiculous.

      • disqus_YbB9tbvvLq

        In other words, he could have been worse?

        • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

          Sure. He could have been Creigh Deeds.

          • Chip Tarbutton

            Brian, this word evil you use…I don’t think it means what you think it means. If the government isn’t expanding…it certainly isn’t contracting. All small government GOP middle of the roaders do (if we’re lucky) is slow the growth for a year or two. And I suppose a large tax increase doesn’t expand government Brian. You must have a whole vat of Kool-Aid right by your PC.

          • MD Russ

            Chip,

            it is debatable whether the government is expanding in real terms, but there a couple of pertinent points. First, our population is constantly expanding. That drives needs for more schools, hospitals, roads, police and fire protection, and a host of other functions that government must pay for and manage. The constantly-growing transportation needs of Virginia are a case in point–more people and more businesses are coming to Virginia and no one is bringing any roads with them, just more cars and trucks. Second, technology and the capability it represents is exploding exponentially. And people are demanding that government provide more convenient and efficient services as a result. Long gone are the days when you had to drive to the DMV, take a number, and wait several hours to renew your driver’s license. Now you can do it on your computer at home with a few mouse clicks. But someone has to build, maintain, and improve the supporting technology and that means more government functions where none existed before.

            We live in one of the world’s most advantaged and prosperous societies in the United States and that doesn’t come free.

          • frank papcin

            –and most of the job producing companies have moved out of this country for their bottom lines.–leaving only jobs with little production that too many people don’t know how to do.–and a government thinking it knows best telling everyone how to do everything but just digging a deeper hole for our children to fill in later.–we may live in the worlds most advanced societies ,–but we never learned to live within our means.
            –we the people keep borrowing on our children’s heritage.–lets all go out and have a party on them.–let them pay for our folly.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            That’s not true. The United States is still the worlds leading manufacturer.

          • MD Russ

            You are right, Brian. And more to the point, Virginia has enjoyed the rating of being number 2 or number 3 out of all 50 states in “business climate” studies ranging from Forbes Magazine to CNBC. The idea that Virginia is off-shoring jobs instead of attracting news ones here is a myth perpetuated by Democrats such as Terry McAuliffe who beat the drum for “creating jobs for the working class” under the discredited theory that government, and not businesses, can create wealth. BTW, what keeps Virginia out of the number 1 rating in these studies? Transportation infrastructure. Go figure. And that is why McDonnell and a bipartisan cross-section of the General Assembly voted for a reliable and sustainable revenue source. Yes, it is a tax increase. But it will produce more economic activity and better lives for all of us. Too many Republicans seem to have forgotten the lessons of Reagan.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            No, tax increases don’t expand government. I wrote an article about that a few weeks ago. Evil is pretty obvious – and the Democrats aren’t evil. They want the same things we all want, they just have different ways if getting there. This whole attitude that Democrats are proto-fascists or everyone who isn’t Tea Party or a libertarian are somehow trying to destroy the world is just stupid.

            I don’t drink kool-aid. I’m an iced tea kind of guy,

          • frank papcin

            they want the same things we want?–do you want this country to be dependent on the government for everything?–if everyone worked for the government,–who would pay the taxes to pay them all, even without taking into consideration any retirements rights?–keep printing it and borrowing from ]China to pay for it all?–someone has to produce a product that other people need or want outside of the government.–private industries–private employees.–earning a living without the governmental interferences–at least not total control of all our lives.–why bother,–preaching to a wall gets better results..

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            That’s not what Democrats want. And weren’t you just complaining about big business a few seconds ago?

          • Kblankenship7

            Democrats want the same thing we all want? That cannot be true, unless it is indeed the case that these two parties are but one.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            No. It means they want the same things we want – to be able to live our lives, be safe, healthy and secure, give our kids more than we had, etc. They want the American Dream, too.

            They just have a vastly different approach to it than we do, one that has the government playing a leading role in making that possible for people. We don’t.

      • Jeanine Martin

        A Governor who pushes for the largest tax hike in the history of the state is NOT a conservative. No way, no how. He lied. The sooner he’s gone, the better.

        • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

          That’s just plain ridiculous, Jeanine. The guy here accused Bob of lying about his conservative credentials when he ran, not that he passed the transportation bill. We can argue about whether passing any kind of tax increase is conservative or not at some other point, but what warmac said was flat wrong.

          • Warmac9999

            I truly wish I were flat wrong. The democrats are destroying the nation, and it seems each step we take as republicans just helps them move the ball to the left. We are quite close to the very tyranny of government that the founders warned about.

            We do not need big government republicans in office yet we seem unable to distinguish them from conservative candidates who align themselves vocally and practically with the conservative grassroots. I run into folks on a regular basis who have abandoned the party because of this “talk conservative, govern big” situation. I have no answer for such behavior other than power corrupts. It is depressing.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            That’s a load of BS. Nobody is destroying the country. The Democrats are wrong, but they aren’t evil. That tyranny talk is pure hyperbole.

            I don’t get where anybody could accuse Bob McDonnell of being a “big government” anything. We have not seen any expansion of government in Virginia under his watch.

          • Warmac9999

            I’m confused. Government keeps growing regardless of who is in power and somehow this yields more individual liberty? Obama refuses to enforce the law and this is a republic where the Constitution is presumed the foundation of the law? By the way, one does not have to be evil to support evil.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            We aren’t talking about Obama, we are talking about Bon McDonnell. And, as I already noted, there has been no massive expansion of government under McDonnell.

          • frank papcin

            the expansion is in the taxes he agreed to.–maybe needed!–but no under the conditions he agreed to.–you think the tolls he agreed TO WERE RIGHT?–do you really think big business deals are the answer to all our problems?–this state has needs,– that have to fulfilled one way or the other, but not for the profits of big business but for the benefits of the poor working class that keeps getting stuck with the bill.–why do you think so many people are upset with him?–NOT BECAUSE THEY LIKE OBAMA!–they just don’t like what he is doing to them.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Those taxes didn’t represent an expansion of government. Not one area that wasn’t already regulated became regulated. No one lost a right or saw their liberty or property interests curtailed. The tax burden was simply shifted from the individual at the pump to the wholesaler at the rack, with a number if fee increases. There was no government expansion.

            I prefer tolls to wholesale tax increases, yes, because they hit users rather than everyone.

            People are upset with McDonnell for a lot of reasons, but the transportation bill is a bad one. Unfortunately, we have wailed on the all taxes are bad and anyone who raises taxes is a Democrat that we’ve forgotten that there’s more to at his business than campaigning. If you win, you have to govern, and sometimes that means doing things that are right, even if they are unpopular.

          • Chip Tarbutton

            So increased taxation does not negatively impact my economic freedom? Larger budgets don’t increase the power/size/scope of government? C’mon Brian….your a good shill, but this is getting embarrassing.The fact that the state has done a poor job of managing the money we have already is the bigger issue than the funding stream the state and their agencies have to get the work done. What is being done to ensure efficiency with the money they do have? Again,, do you really think five years from now this plan is going to provide relief to NOVA and EAVA drivers?

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            No, like I said in my article, hiring a few more workers to get the checks out faster doesn’t mean the scope of government is increasing. If you are paying taxes that go to better services or infrastructure, that is not negatively impacting your economic freedom. In fact, if it speeds up your commute or makes transportation more reliable, it’s increasing your economic freedom. These are transfer payments or wealth redistribution – they are actual investments in real things. You can’t lump all taxes for all reasons into the same thing.

          • Eric McGrane

            What is the exact percentage of revenues covered in the bill that will be dedicated to transportation as a result of the transportation bill passing? I’m assuming its 100%, because the urgent critical need to raise taxes was due to transportation.

          • Warmac9999

            It would be nice if Virginia actually had a massive reduction of government or even having the surplus returned to the people in a nice bonus check.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Virginia is one of the best run states, and government here isn’t so large that we need a massive reduction in it. For the most part, the General Assembly has been as hands off as any in the country. We maintain a balanced budget and we have a rainy day fund. While I wouldn’t complain about getting a check back, I would rather see the money sit and be used as a hedge against future years when things are tougher.

          • Warmac9999

            Hedges seem to get used for political purposes not for necessities. By the way, Virginia averages 2 employees per 1000 citizens more than the national average and more than Maryland. About a 4% reduction in state manpower to about 52 per 1000 citizens would bring us in line with the national average. This is not exactly a massive reduction but it would certainly save millions of dollars.

            We have gotten into a situation where more government need is driven by government itself. The result is that pleas to cut government go unheeded. Sadly, Republican Party leaders think of people who protest more government growth as “cherpers” or “nuts” or “right wing crazies”. I believe that the founders spent a lot of time to get it right and the further we drift away from their thinking, the worse the situation becomes.

            Constitutional government is good government.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            We are a bigger state geographically, thus we are going to need more services in wider areas. The fact that we have more employees than Maryland means nothing – it’s the scope of government that is the issue.

            The founders said nothing about how Virginia handles herself. You need to stop conflating federal and state issues.

          • Warmac9999

            My point was about rate not total number of employees. Virginia could have twice the population of Maryland for all I care. Virginia has 54+ employees per 1000 citizens. The national average is 52+ employees per 1000 citizens average across the various states. A conservative governor would look at such a bench mark and freeze hiring at a minimum.

            I am pro-business but that doesn’t mean that I am anti-government efficiencies. Businesses like lower taxes and they come to the South because the Northeast has become increasingly business unfriendly.

          • Chris Ambrose

            Businesses don’t like low taxes for the sake of low taxes and no informed citizen should either. Businesses want taxes as low as possible but sufficient to ensure decent deliver of services and adaquate investment in infrastructure and education.

          • Warmac9999

            I ran a small business. Have you bothered to look at the number of different taxing mechanisms every small business encounters and the potential for government abuse? Your last sentence is obvious, but, for some reason, many businesses and wealthy individuals are fleeing the USA. I doubt it is for better roads, education and services.

          • Chris Ambrose

            I currently run a small business and am well aware of the taxing mechanisms that exist. It probably would be simpler I’d they got rid of some of the, and increased the income tax to co Ed the shortffall, but I am sure you would scream bloody murder if that were proposed.

          • Warmac9999

            I believe that government needs to be supported but at this point we have nearly half the population that receive an income but pay nothing to support the federal government. Like it or not, all the welfare programs provide an income but those who receive it have no obligation to fund this country. This is unsustainable and is a major contributor to nation debt.

          • Chris Ambrose

            Wow, you are really misinformed. First, lets start with Mitt Romney’s 47% argument, which you have obviously bought into. Not paying federal income taxes does not mean not paying anything. Do you even realize that a huge portion of the so called 47% actually pay more of their income in taxes than Mitt Romney?
            These are people who scrape by and have no extra income and yet they pay a higher percentage of their income than someone who has so much extra money his only problem is finding the time figuring out where to park it and he has the audacity to call them takers?
            Secondly,if you really believe that welfare payments are the problem behind the country’s debt, you need to get your head examined. Any good government person,, and sadly their are few Republicans left in this column, would agree that any program needs to be properly managed. In the case of public assistance, it needs to go to the people who need it. That is why Clinton instituted the work requirement (news flash: Obama dDID NOT eliminate it).
            The problem Republicans have is that keep focusing on hot bottom budget priorities that have little impact on the debt, all the while supporting large programs and tax polcies that enrich they wealthy and create large structural problems with the budget that are the primary cause of our debt problem.
            Republicans willingness to blame the poor and the middle class all the while enriching the wealthy by running up a debt that they expect the middle class to pay off, is why they cannot win elections.

          • Warmac9999

            You believe that more government is good government. I will stand with the founders and the Constitution.

          • Chris Ambrose

            When are you going to understand that Democrats don’t believe in government for the sake of government? Government is not an end in itself. It is time you undersood that and, more importantly, it is time you understood that cutting government is not an end in itself either Cutting spending, soley to say you cut spending, inevitably leads to waste.

            The government is here to advance policies that improve people’s quality of life – and boy has government delivered. Did you ever ask yourself why this country has eperienced a such massive growth in economic opportunity, individual rights, educational opportuntiy, infrastructure, clean environment, health and longetvity of life since government took a more active role in society since the 1930s?

            It is also high time you realize that it is unlikely that the founding fatihers would be on your side were they to show up here today. The fact is they jettisoned the articles of confederation to make a strong federal government. They understood that a “more perfect union” was impossible with the weak system the Tea Party longs for today.

            DId they envision a program like social Security or a Department of transportation, or an EPA? Of course not, how could they have.

            However, were they to come back, in addition to being mesmorized at the advances in society, the first thing they would be amazed at is that the constitution they wrote nearly a quarter millineum ago was still in use. They would have never believed it could have been in use in such a different society.

            If one were to then explain to them what the Soicial Security system is and the reasons it was developed, their probable response would be something like: “We could never have imagined this and it would have never made sense in 1781 but we are glad to see, and proud to know, that you have taken our document and found the basis for making this an even more perfect union that advances the general welfare of the people of the United States of America.

          • Warmac9999

            The problem is that democrats don’t trust people to manage their own affairs. They see victims everywhere and want the government to do something. Well, I want victims to be helped by being empowered to do more for themselves – and government welfare empowers the state by taking from those who produce. Just today, I received an e-mail that noted the cost of government regulation to the private sector. It was 1.75 trillion dollars annually. Just how many jobs, how many businesses, how many discouraged workers do you think that produces?

            You mention the1930s as some magic transition point to American greatness. I believe 1776 is a bit more accurate. You laud the socialist state while I laud the free individual. So be it.

          • Chris Ambrose

            How do you return a surplus check when there is not even money to patch pot holes or cut the grass on medians?

          • Warmac9999

            If something is a surplus, it means you don’t need for government purposes.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            No, it just means that the revenue outpaced expenditures. It doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a need that was going unfulfilled because of budget constraints at the time the budget was adopted.

          • Warmac9999

            If you run constant surpluses, you do not need the money that was provided by the tax payers. I worked for decades in the DC world, and surpluses were quickly spent to justify the need for more money. We even had a special list for what we would do with 10%, 20% or more money. Unless the money is returned to the taxpayer, it will eventually be spent regardless of the nature of the need.

          • Chris Ambrose

            Well put Brian.

          • Chris Ambrose

            Possibly, or it could mean you are not allocating resources properly. A surplus in the state can be put into the rainy day fund or returned to the taxpayers. At the federal level, it can be used to pay down debt. This was the approach Clinton took with the debt that he inherited from the Reagan era. Gore campaigned on continuing that effort to save social security.

            Remember the “lockbox”? , Bush and the Republicans would have none of it and followed your advice and gave tax cuts that blew our debt through the roof so that now we are facing cuts in social security – the republican plan all along.

            Back to my original point, any surplus we have at the state level is pocket change compared to the funding shortfall we have had in transportation.

          • Scout

            Should a President enforce an unconstitutional law?

          • Warmac9999

            Until a law is found to be unconstitutional it should be enforced. The executive branch doesn’t legislate or adjudicate, it executes. We don’t need three branches of government if the executive is going to do everything.

          • Chris Ambrose

            Yeah, like collecting taxes. It should not be up to the AG to decide not to enforce tax laws when the person who is not paying taxes is a big donor.

        • Warmac9999

          My point exactly. I was at the nominating convention. There were a lot of new republicans in attendance. Most were pleased that they were getting a true smaller government and lower taxes conservative as governor. Instead, we see a massive end of term tax increase imposed with his help and democrats cheering every move. And when democrats cheer, we all know that we have been had.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Trying to solve our transportation revenue issues have been front burner issues for the last four governors. Gilmore couldn’t fix it. Warner couldn’t fix it. Kaine couldn’t fix it. McDonnell did. Between the last transportation bill and the most recent one, McDonnell has completely reformed how we handle transportation revenue in Virginia and he’s injected more money into transportation – a core government function – than anybody in decades.

            You guys are acting like he’s some kind of crazy tax and spender – that’s not the case. We’ve had surpluses almost every year since he’s been in office, and the transportation bill had bipartisan support. Democrats were not cheering when the bill passed – they thought it didn’t go far enough. But it was the best anybody could do. The bill wasn’t perfect, but it was better than nothing.

            You guys don’t want a person in these offices, you want a robot who will just say no to everything.

          • Catherine Stone McNickle

            I am withholding judgement on the “fix”, because nothing has happened yet. There are new taxes and plan, but to celebrate that our transportation woes are over and Bob is the big fixer is ridiculous.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            We have fixed the transportation revenue problem. Whether that results in fixes to our traffic congestion problems is a long term question with a long term answer. That was my point.

          • Chip Tarbutton

            Have we really fixed the transportation revenue problem Brian? Time will tell, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on that. In fact, I would be surprised if a commuter in NOVA or EAVA could tell the difference at all in 5 years….other than they are paying higher taxes.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            By setting the tax as a wholesale percentage rather than a retail flat rate, the tax will rise and fall with the price of gas. The legislature won’t need to directly address shortfalls again because now the tax rate is directly related to the price and thus the market will set the rate.

            Thus, the revenue problem is addressed. No more inflation eating into the revenue.

          • Chip Tarbutton

            Lets agree to meet somewhere in NOVA in 2018 and see if this latest revenue scheme improves the road systems. Inflation may not eat into the tax money paid in to the system (revenues…man Brian you sound more and more like a Dem every time you post) but that is not the biggest issue with Transportation. How will this help with mismanagement, misallocation of resources, and ever increasing layers of government red tape that lead to the slipshod way we handle transportation?

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            Given how deep a hole we were in – tens of billions in the hole – when it came to just keeping up with maintenance and repair, having a dedicated source of funding that doesn’t have to be increased every couple years by raising taxes can’t be anything less than a good thing.

            I use the word revenue because that’s what the issue was. There just wasn’t funding available because the amount of tax money coming in wasn’t keeping up with demands and was constantly being diminished by inflation. Words don’t have partisan meaning. Revenue is no more a Democratic word than hope or change.

            As for the other problems, they still exist and they will be up to another General Assembly to address. But the problem of having our transportation funding tied to an almost impossible to change gas tax is now gone.

          • Warmac9999

            A few years ago, in the country of New Zealand, a new conservative government was sworn in. The prior socialist government had run NZ into the ground. As the basis for fundamental change, the new government asked a simple question – is this the role of government or would it be better done by the private sector? Each government agency was called before the government officials and asked not only to defend what they were doing but why what they were doing could not be done better by the private sectors. The result was that many things – schools, land management, and more were turned over to the private sector. Of particular note, the general grades and academic scores of all children improved even in the public schools that were given increased flexibility to do their job as they saw fit. To say that more government is better government belies success stories from around the world. I don’t want robots in office but I sure want people who think like the NZ officials – and, by the way, return money to the people rather than finding clever ways to shuffle the deck.

          • MD Russ

            You are not quite telling the whole story about New Zealand. Since the privatization/out-sourcing movement started in New Zealand, taxes have increased substantially. Even thought the top marginal income rate is only 39%, the tax brackets are much higher rates at lower income levels. The first $19,000 (US equivalent) is taxed at 20%. And the national sales tax has increased 50% from 10% to 15%. Finally, their social security system is bankrupt and medical care is difficult to obtain because doctors and other providers are paid so poorly by the government.

          • Warmac9999

            Depends on who is in charge, the National Party or Labour Party. Privatization has been successful although not perfect. As the founders warned, beware of politicians as they tend to increase their power. Rare exception in George Washington who turned down the opportunity to be America’s first king.

          • MD Russ

            Warmac,

            Are you trying to maintain that taxes go down when the National Party is in charge and go up when the Labour Party is in power? The data do not support that assertion.

          • Warmac9999

            From what I can see in the rather complex data, privatization goes up when the National Party is in charge. It certainly seems to be that way in the education sector. Labour supports the NZ equivalent of unions.

          • Eric McGrane

            Whats missing from discussion is WHY the NOVA area keeps getting more congested. Perhaps its because the federal government continues to grow? DC is using federal money for massive construction projects all around the area. The DC area contains the richest counties in the country. Perhaps if the VA state government did its JOB of pushing back against federal overreach and expansion, maybe we wouldn’t have the same degree of congestion in NOVA. So the federal govt expands because the impotent states do little to stop it, and gosh golly VA needs to raise taxes to address it. I mean, its our only option, right?

          • Warmac9999

            Right on target. One of the saddest things I see in traveling around America is the dilapidated state of many towns and villages. As federal and even state taxes go up, people have less discretionary income and their localities struggle to provide jobs and a good standard of living. Centralization of political power and resources is not a good thing.

  • Edward N Virginia

    WOW, what a sleaze this Governor, and his family, appear to be.

    And so-called ‘fiscal conservatives’, ‘Bible-believing Republicans’, and ‘small-government’ TEA Parties elected this guy?

    Makes you wonder!

    • William Burke

      If I were to write, “Bible-doubting Democrats”, would THAT help you get a clue?

      • Edward N Virginia

        NOPE,

        since my family carried to Virginia one of its precious treasures, one of the oldest rarest Protestant Bibles, in German vernacular.

        I invite many Republicans to begin policy discussions with a brief Bible study on the issue of the policy, and they decline.

        Why don’t you so-called ‘Bible-believing’ Republican elected officials welcome a Bible study on the policy issues ACROSS many points of view on the issues?

  • frank papcin

    someone told me that this was a pro republican site?–guess they were wrong.–unless of course the democrats were right in what they are calling republicans–big business only!–sorry to have been here –see ya.

  • carlito

    Hey Christian Willie, how about that part in the Bible regarding thou shalt not bear false witness? Oops, guess you forget that one when it gets in the way of your narrative, huh?

  • Eric Futterman

    Whatever can be done to ensure anti-freedom Attorney General Cuccinelli and his running mate, bats#%t crazy EW Jackson don’t get into office must be done.

    • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

      What does any of this have to do with Ken and Jackson? And just how is Ken “anti-freedom?”

      • Chris Ambrose

        Anyone who wants to expand the reach of government into controlling people’s private lives can be characterized as “anti-freedom”. Ken represents big government at its worst.

        • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

          The problem arises when the reach is designed to protect someone’s freedom at the expense of someone else’s. Then it becomes a value judgment based on whose freedom needs the greater protection.

          • Chris Ambrose

            Forcing people to have unnecessary medical procedures, restricting access to birth control, having the state control communications between a doctor and a patient, telling a church who they can and cannot legally marry (I can go on and on) do not advance anyone’s freedom.

            As I said, all it is is big government for the sake of big government (and Ken Cuccinelli’s extreme ideology)

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            They advance the freedom of a fetus that may otherwise be deprived of his paramount liberty interest – life.

            As for restricting access to birth control, that’s not happening. That issue was always about who pays for it, not who can get it.

            The marriage issue is out of Ken’s hands.

          • Chris Ambrose

            Brian, that is a false argument. A fetus is not equal to a woman either scientifically or under the law. I respect people’s religious and moral views and defend their right to live their life according to them (ie: if a doctor tells a woman she has a 1% chance of surviving a pregnancy or a fetus has a 1% chance of living a normal life, it is her right to bring the child to term), all I ask is that people not use government to impose those views on others. This is exactly what Ken has done.

            You are wrong on the birth control. Ken has supported legislation that would outlaw some types of birth control.

            Ken just proudly bragged that he used VA TAX DOLLARS to file a brief with the supreme court on the CALIFORNIA prop 8 case. He continues to support actions by the State legislature to have the state tell churches whom they can and cannot marry.

            On another note, he has argued that the state has an interest in getting into people’s bedrooms to regulate their sexual activitiy.

            Brian – I know you have your reasons for supporting Cooch, but, seriously, how can you argue that Ken is anything less than a big government guy? I could go on and on about his efforts to regulate the personal lives of people for no other reason than his religiious views.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            We have to agree to disagree, Chris. A baby is a baby, born or unborn, and deserves protection – especially when his primary protector, his mother, may not have his best interests at heart. Proclaiming that a baby is not a baby simply because it has not yet been born is, in my opinion, engaging in euphemisms designed to make the ultimate decision to end a life more palatable. I don’t care to play those kinds of semantical games.

            Ken’s views on abortion are mainstream, and reflect the general consensus within the Republican party, which is generally in opposition to abortion. In my opinion, opposition to abortion does not represent “big government” because it is not a cut and dried case of government restricting freedoms. You have a moral question of whose freedoms need greater protection – the liberty interest of the mother vs. the life interest of the baby. Ken and I – while we disagree on a lot of things – agree that the life interests of the baby must take precedence.

            I am not familiar with any legislation that would have banned any form of birth control. I’m assuming you’re referring to abortifaecents, and there’s debate over whether those should be considered birth control or not. Most of us in the party are not opposed to birth control or ensuring access to it. Those who are happen to be a vocal minority.

            The Prop 8 case had Virginia implications, so I don’t view his filing of an amicus brief in that case to be a bad thing. While I disagree with Virginia’s marriage amendment, it is still the law, and Ken has a responsibility to defend it, including in cases that may not directly involve Virginia but have the potential to impact our laws, like that case did.

            As for the “argued that the state has an interest in getting into people’s bedrooms” that is a mischaracterization of the reasons behind the defense of the sodomy laws that were used to convict a 40+ year old who was attempting to solicit oral sex from a minor. That law is still on the books and while I consider it to be unconstitutional, Ken did his job in defending it – it’s up to a court to determine whether or not it’s valid.

            Ken is a lawyer. I am a lawyer. There are going to be times when we are ethically bound by our profession to advocate on behalf of clients using arguments that we personally disagree with. In those situations, our duty to zealously represent our client trumps our own political and moral choices. When a lawyer makes an argument in court, he is not arguing his personal beliefs – he’s making an argument on behalf of his client, and he should not be held to hold those beliefs unless he makes it clear outside the courtroom that he does.

            And while Ken has his opinions and his beliefs, I don’t consider him a big government guy.

          • Chris Ambrose

            I guess we will have to disagree. I respect your personal views on when life begins and wont trivialize them by calling them semantics. However, the fact of the matter is that your view that a fetus is a baby is not supported by science or the law. It is your personal, and I am going to guess, religously based view. It is not a trivial matter. So one day after conception it is a baby even though it is microscopi?. How about before conception? After all, an unfertized egg is a form of human life, which if all things go right, could become a baby. Where do you draw the line? I will chose science, the law and the woman’s individual righs every time.
            I don;t think woman should have to live their lives according to the Biran Shoeneman definition of life when science and the law says otherwise.

          • http://www.brianschoeneman.org/ Brian W. Schoeneman

            This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of rights and the protection of those rights. My view has nothing to do with religion. I’m not a Catholic. My view has to do with my belief in the rights of all people and that those rights should be protected. Specifically, it has to do with the rights of those who are least able to defend themselves and protect their own rights. I draw the line at conception.

            You place a woman’s individual rights over those of the child. I don’t. The child’s rights need the greater protection.

            I am not advocating for laws to ban abortion. They don’t work. What I want is a societal shift that focuses on better education and birth control, coupled with a recognition that unborn kids are valuable and should be protected – so that abortion stops being something we even consider anymore. You can’t change people’s hearts and minds through the law, and that’s what this is going to take.

    • S Fisher

      Good grief, this situation with McDonnell has NOTHING to do with Ken or Jackson!

  • Pingback: Sources: McDonnell to Resign as Virginia Governor | JHPolitics

  • D Guest

    Hope this isn’t true.
    That said, Bob threw us under the bus when he secretly supported Medicaid expansion and an Obamacare state exchange along with his Secretary of DHHR Hazel, who supports Commiecare. We now have a partnership exchange with the Feds thanks to their efforts, colluding with Dems and fooling the Repubs in the House. Oh, but we took out the words ‘partnership exchange’ and left the rest in so it’s okay. Terribly disappointed in McDonnell.

  • Pingback: My Beef With The McDonnell Scandal… | Roanoke Tea Party

  • Pingback: Governor McDonnell to Resign on Monday | Virginia Virtucon

  • Pingback: Gov. McDonnell repays loans to Star Scientific CEO - RVANews

  • Pingback: Deals and Politics

  • Pingback: Kenney LIVE on SiriusXM 125 to Discuss McDonnell Scandals | Bearing Drift

  • Pingback: Reputation and Consequence | Bearing Drift

  • S Fisher

    If this is true, it really is a sad day for the Commonwealth, I really admire McDonnell for what he has been able to do for Virginia…he would have been an excellent presidential candidate, which I suspect is why this mud is being slung now to nip that notion in the bud.