McAuliffe’s Failed Governorship Results in Record 91 Vetoes

91 vetoes.

Governor McAuliffe has officially now vetoed more legislation than any Governor in Virginia history.  Today he issued his 91st veto on a bill that would have protected clergy and bona-fide religious institutions from civil liability if they were unwilling to solemnize a same-sex marriage, breaking Jim Gilmore’s 89 vote record.  Since the 91st veto, he has since issued 4 more, bringing the current total to 95 and counting.

The Washington Post claims that this is indicative of “the ideological gap between the Democratic chief executive and the Republican-controlled legislature.”

The Democratic Party of Virginia, in an email, claims that this is evidence that the Governor has “fought relentlessly on behalf of individuals whose rights radicals in the General Assembly have sought to take away.”

The Post is right, but hey, there’s always been an ideological gap between governors and legislators of different parties.  DPVA’s take is Washington-style turd polishing, but hey, they have to do that.  The Governor pays the bills.

The reality of breaking this veto record is much more fundamental than that.  It is the capstone to a failed governorship.

95 vetoes isn’t a milestone that anybody should be proud of.  What it shows is a Chief Executive who is incapable of convincing the legislature to do what he wants them to do.  95 vetoes come from a Governor who was unable to come up with any common ground with the General Assembly, and who was unable to work any deals to stop bad legislation.  Most of those 95 vetoes were a godsend of political fodder flowing straight from his veto pen into GOP fundraising appeals and eventually into Republican campaign accounts.  95 vetoes shows a Governor who was disconnected and impotent, unwilling to do the hard work to build the relationships he needed to get things done.  In short, 95 vetoes isn’t evidence of the Governor’s willingness to fight for individuals rights, it’s evidence of his inability to govern.

To be fair, there are always going to be vetoes in a divided government – it’s inevitable.  But when you’re talking dozens of vetoes every session for an entire four year term, that’s not just divided government.  That’s political dysfunction.  Sometimes political dysfunction isn’t avoidable.  There is no evidence, however, that the political dysfunction brought on by Governor McAuliffe was anything but avoidable.

As noted, 95 vetoes breaks the record set by Jim Gilmore’s governorship.  Yet if you compare the two terms, you’ll see a marked difference in the reasons for the high numbers of vetoes.  On one side, you’ve got McAuliffe’s flaws as a chief executive, and on the other, Jim Gilmore’s power politics.  Governor Gilmore came into office with a sweep of the top three statewide offices, with a majority in the State Senate and a potential 49+1 vote Republican-leaning parity in the House of Delegates.  With 49 GOPers and one independent who leaned GOP, for the first time in Virginia history the General Assembly might have been under GOP control, or at least some kind of power sharing arrangement that would give Republicans more control.  Instead, the Democrats went to court, and were able to successfully block the seating of three Republican House members who won special elections from being seated early with the rest of the House.  That, coupled with some heavy handed parliamentary tactics, sealed the Democrats’ majority, but it also resulted in two years of hard-knuckled brawling between Governor Gilmore and Speaker Thomas Moss.  And, two years later, cost them the General Assembly.

None of that is happening now.  Republicans have enjoyed solid majorities in both the House and Senate since 2015, and Speaker Howell and Majority Leader Norment have served under multiple Democratic governors without the kind of acrimony we’ve witnessed since 2013.  For most of Governor McAuliffe’s time in office, he’s had Republicans in control fair and square, with no controversy other than the perennial complaints and lawsuits over gerrymandering.  There was never a chance that he would have had a unified Democratic General Assembly anyway, because the House has been overwhelmingly Republican since 2011 and there was never any danger this was going to change.  McAuliffe knew – or, at least he should have known – that he’d be dealing with divided government for most of his time in office, and that he’d have to be willing to be the kind of jobs focused, bipartisan dealmaker he claimed to be during the 2013 gubernatorial election if he wanted any hope of getting anything done.

Did he ever do that?  Nope.

This is a governor who was notoriously hands off when it came to the legislature.  We’d all heard the anecdotes told by members of the House and Senate off-the-record, but there was no dearth of on-the-record statements, either.  Senate Majority Leader Kirk Cox told the Post that McAuliffe was rarely seen during session, and when key bills come up, the McAuliffe Administration was silent.  This was the same governor who blew up the traditional process for nominating Supreme Court judges in Virginia because he didn’t have the courtesy to pick up the phone and call Speaker Howell or Majority Leader Norment before he made an announcement.  The same Governor who spent every ounce of his political capital tilting at the windmill of Medicaid expansion in Virginia – which, given the intent of the current White House and Congress to cut off the money for the expansion, would have blown a massive hole in Virginia’s budget.  And even though McAuliffe was successful in delivering Virginia for Hillary Clinton, that victory soon turned to ashes in his mouth as Clinton lost the electoral college in three states she thought were a slam dunk.  If Clinton has been elected President, McAuliffe could have taken a cabinet appointment and left with his reputation largely intact.  But without that win, what can he really say he accomplished?  Taking credit for jobs numbers he had nothing to do with?

This is a Governor with zero accomplishments, zero legislative victories, and a string of electoral defeats that have followed him throughout his time in the Governor’s Mansion.  Medicaid wasn’t expanded in Virginia.  Hillary Clinton isn’t President.  Judge Marum Roush is back in private practice.  The General Assembly is more Republican now than when he took office.  And the GOP is poised to sweep all three statewide offices this year, following their victories in 2016 which gave Republicans control of the White House and Congress, along with the assurance of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.  Governor McAuliffe will be remembered, if he’s remembered at all, as “Governor No.”  95 vetoes is the equivalent of 20-134, the 1899 Cleveland Spiders’ dubious record for the worst season in baseball history.

No matter how well you spin it, 95 vetoes is not a victory.  It’s evidence of a failed Governor who was singularly unable to live up to the promises he made when he ran, and who didn’t particularly care.  When Governor McAuliffe leaves office next January, he will have walked away without a single signature achievement.  This was, at best, a wasted four years for the Democratic party and at worst a brutal demonstration of what can happen when you put somebody with no experience into the biggest job in Virginia and expect them to succeed.

They don’t.



  • old_redneck

    Good for McAuliffe. He needs to veto more of the useless crap the Republicans send to him.

    • MD Russ

      One of the arguments that was made against legalizing gay marriage was that religious clerics could be forced to perform gay marriages in violation of the tenants of their religion. I was among the people who believed that argument was specious, First Amendment Establishment Clause and all that. McAuliffe has exposed the liberals’ true intent: force religious clerics and their churches to accept and condone gay marriage against their will and beliefs with the threat of civil law penalties. So much for protecting individual liberties. There is a huge difference between permitting gay marriage and making its recognition mandatory by secular law.

      • Ben Hixon

        The law the Governor just vetoed says that no religious affiliate shall have their tax subsidies or state contracts canceled “on account of such person’s belief, speech, or action in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” In other words, they can take any action they want that accords with their belief that gay marriage is wrong, and they get to keep my tax money. It’s a license to full LGBT discrimination while on the government dole.

        • MD Russ

          Being tax exempt is not the same thing as keeping your tax money. Many, many non-profit organizations, both religious and secular, are tax exempt including some who vociferously oppose abortion. Are they also keeping the tax money of those who support a woman’s right to abortion and should lose their tax exemption?

          • good point, but again you’re not reading the whole bill. it’s not just tax exemption, it’s any “state grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, guarantee, loan, scholarship, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status”

          • Private religious organizations that have tax exempt status are very well protected. they’re exempt from the civil rights act! Religious organizations have the right to fire Christians and women at whim! As they should be able to. I’m talking about groups that get contracts and subsidies from the government. I want the people that my government employs to not fire me for being gay.

          • MD Russ

            What religious groups that oppose gay marriage get contracts and subsidies from the government that conservative groups who oppose abortion don’t/can’t get?

          • The First Amendment protects them, not exemptions from statutory law.

          • MD Russ


            I was having a hard time figuring you out until I went to your web site. A couple of observations, for what it is worth. First, a Democrat doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning in the 30th House District these days. The odds are even worse for a gay Democrat. Running against Donald Trump is not going to work any better than Corey Stewart running with Trump. I suspect that the votes that you receive will be equal to the number of people in your group photo on the web site. Maybe half a dozen more. Second, almost all of the gay men we know dress much better than you do. Of course, we don’t know any gay rednecks.

          • Thanks for the observations! I’m also a pro-gun rights, pro-homeschool, pro-citizens united, anti-regulation libertarian. I think I can connect with people here. I’m fighting for a new Democratic Party platform, one that emphasizes freedom for everyone, just as much as I am fighting to win. Don’t you want to experience a world where the discussion isn’t just freedom vs. not freedom, but where the conversation between parties is how best to maximize freedom? That’s the political world I want to live in. I’m not somebody who gives up just because failure is likely.

          • If you support Citizen’s United, you’re no Democrat.

          • With all due respect, I disagree. The ACLU also supported Citizens United, and they’ve always been a friend to Democrats. Remember what the case was about: a private group wanted the right to show an anti-Hillary movie in a private theater, and the government censored it for being political. The government lawyers argued in court that not only could they censor movies, but they could censor books as well. That’s not freedom. I’ve spoken to so many Democrats who don’t even know that Citizens United was a censorship case. It’s because the party establishment has made it into a wedge issue. This is our chance to change that.

          • Sorry, Ben, but Citizen’s United was not a censorship case. It was a campaign finance case. And don’t give me the “ACLU has always been a friend to Democrats” so some Democrats support the holding in the case.

            The lawsuit had nothing to do with censoring political speech. The law challenged by the “private group” prohibited corporate and union funded electioneering messages during election campaigns. Nothing in the law favored political speech supporting one candidate or party over another, nor did it limit what someone could say. It was content neutral and applied only to “private groups” funded by corporations or unions. So it censored no one – it just limited the power of wealthy corporations and unions to buy elections by flooding the campaign with money.

            Actual citizens…and citizens groups…could show any film they wished. The law only banned messages from fake citizen’s astroturf groups like Citizen’s United funded by corporate or union contributions – and even then only during a specified period directly prior to elections.

            The SCOTUS decision went against all precedent and in fact addressed a question not raised in the suit (see Steven’s dissent). It had nothing at all to do with government censorship – it just allowed corporations and unions to try buying elections by incorrectly conflating political contributions with speech.

            I think a bona-fide progressive Democrat can win the 30th District. You could start by giving Trump supporters a true populist message based on protecting workers, limiting the power of corporations to capture all the gains from productivity, and taxing the winners to help those they left behind when they moved jobs overseas. By November they’ll have realized what a bait and switch they got from Trump.

            But you won’t win many Democratic votes by supporting the power of corporations and billionaires to buy elections. If you think money is speech, you’re no Democrat, whether or not the ACLU holds the same view.

          • I appreciate your passion and your argument is well-reasoned, but I just can’t agree. When we start empowering the government to designate some groups as “actual citizens” and other groups as “fake citizen’s astroturf” then we’ve entered dangerous, dangerous waters. I have to run on what I believe in, and free speech is front and center. I consider myself a progressive because I believe that government can make peoples’ lives better through overwhelmingly strong social safety nets funded by progressive taxation. I think that employment is a contract made in good faith that can’t be broken on grounds of race or sex. I think that healthcare, education and a healthy environment are fundamental freedoms. I think we need more immigration, not less. I think religious freedom means protecting all faiths. But I simply cannot concede the issue of free speech. This is not the time for ideological purity tests: it’s the time to grow the party and unite against a common enemy.

          • The campaign finance law overturned by Citizen’s United said nothing about designating some groups as actual citizens and others as fake astroturf groups. It simply limited the spending power of corporations and unions within 60 days of elections. The law in no way restricted the content of speech, nor did it target any individual citizen’s right to speak.

            It sounds to me like you think corporations and unions are people rather than legal organizations created by the State. Given that corporations and unions are state creations, consider the possibility that the State could empower them in a way that allows them to trample the rights of individuals.

            If you really believe in free speech, you should support the power of citizens and groups that lack the financial resources of corporations and unions to have their voices heard in the political marketplace without being drowned out by corporate money.

            The rest of what you right does sound like something a progressive would say, and yes, the Democratic Party is a big tent. But it’s hard to imagine a progressive Democrat supporting expanding the power of corporations to flood our political discourse with self-serving misinformation. Most would support giving more power to speak freely to actual citizens – not the kind created by government.

            If money is speech, speech is not free.

          • Not sure I’d count my chickens. Ed Scott won in 2013 with 14K votes and change. This came right after Obama got 17,675 votes in the 30th when he won reelection in 2012. Even HRC managed to get almost 13K votes there last year.

            There are enough Democratic votes in the 30th Virginia House of Delegates district to win the seat. It depends on the candidate, turnout, issues, and funding.

            Traci Dippert got more than 8K votes in 2013. If Trump signs health care legislation that increases costs for elderly people in rural areas and has to hunker down against investigations of his, his team’s and his family’s relationships with the Russians (can you say money laundering?), his approval ratings could sink below today’s 36%,

            If this happens, Hixon could double Dippert’s vote and make this very close.

            Mark my words: Running against Donald Trump will work very well for Democrats in the next two years.

          • MD Russ

            So what? The same protections already apply to conservative groups with tax exempt status.

        • So you would support a religiously affiliated hospital being barred from receiving Medicaid reimbursements if their religious affiliation “discriminates against LGBTs”?

          • No, that would be religious discrimination. But I would support canceling their medicaid contract if they act on their religious affiliation by firing all their gay employees. Which would be completely protected under Nick’s bill. Nice question!

          • Those institutions already have the ability to fire all their gay employees. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal or state law. This bill would not have given them anything they already don’t have. That’s not what it was intended to do.

          • I’m not saying they can’t fire their employees (see my response to MD Russ below — religious organizations can fire anyone for any reason), I’m saying I don’t want to keep paying them if they do so

          • If they already have this power now and they haven’t used it, why would they use it if this bill was enacted? They haven’t gained anything. This doesn’t make a lot of sense. This bill doesn’t make it more or less likely that any of these institutions would do anything differently from what they are doing now.

          • again, it’s private religious organizations have that power. this bill enshrines that power to non-private, publicly-contracted organizations and businesses.

          • Can you give some examples of what you mean by non-private, publicly-contracted organizations and businesses?

          • sure; Nick’s bill is really broad. It covers any group “supervised or controlled by or operated in connection with a religious organization,” and they’re not allowed to lose their contracts for any “belief, speech, or action in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” (speech and belief are fine of course, it’s ‘action’ that’s the player here)

            So this includes pretty much any faith-based charity or business. A charity that does food shelters can turn away gay married couples. A faith-based housing program receiving government grants can refuse aid to married gay couples. Even random ones like auto insurance companies for religious buses refuse to hire gay drivers, companies that do spiritual fitness tests, even a janitorial firm that is owned by a church. A daycare that refuses to care for the children of gay parents. All these kind of groups get government subsidies. (I’m sure I don’t need to convince you of the the rampant spending that our government engages in.)

          • Are you aware of any organizations or groups that right now engage in this kind of discrimination?

          • Jerel C. Wilmore

            You would use government funds to support a hospital that denies LGBTQ emergency care? If an ambulance pulls up at a hospital and the EMTs pull a critically injured person out on a stretcher but a doctor stops them at the door and says: “No, this one looks too gay to me. Take him somewhere else.” You’d allow that hospital to receive taxpayer funding?

          • right, great examples. I don’t want to give my tax money to fund a hospital that would do something like that.

          • MD Russ

            Strawman alert. Pure bullshit.

          • No, and this bill doesn’t allow that.

  • Chad Davis

    He’s just trying to puff up his leftists credentials to run against Bernie and others for the 2020 Democratic nomination.

  • Ben Hixon

    Record-breaking number of vetoes means record-breaking number of laws prevented. Which means record-breaking limits on government. I guess Brian Schoeneman isn’t much of a fan of limited government.

    And on HB 2025, Schoeneman knows very well that it did a lot more than prevent the state from forcing a priest to perform a marriage. Which was just as useless as a law that prevents the state from forcing people to attend hockey games: the state didn’t have that power in the first place. It was just cover for what HB 2025 really did, which was to require that the government continue to give tax money and subsidies to government contractors and groups that actively practiced *any* form of LGBT discrimination. Haters will hate, but do I have to give them my tax money while they do it?

    • I’m a big fan of limited government. I’m not a fan of dysfunctional government. That’s what this is.

      Most of the bills McAuliffe vetoed had nothing to do with reducing the size of government. They were strictly him doing favors for special interests or they were him fighting for progressive pet items.

      I didn’t take a position on whether vetoing HB 2025 was a good idea, simply that this was the subject of the veto that broke the record. That you think this was about tax money to religious organizations makes little sense.

      • All I can say to that is, read the bill. If you think naming it a solemnization bill means it was really about solemnization of marriage, then I guess you also think that the Affordable Care Act is affordable!

        • I read it. It’s about ensuring that clergy and religious organizations aren’t going to be sued for not solemnizing same sex marriages.

          At worst, the bill is pointless because the 1st Amendment already protects them from being forced to solemnize a marriage they disagree with.

          As for the rest, you’re not making a very good first impression.

  • Jerel C. Wilmore

    The central purpose of Terry McAuliffe’s governorship has been to prevent the right-wing social engineering of the gerrymandered Republican General Assembly from becoming law.

    Mission Accomplished.

    • That’s funny – I don’t remember him campaigning on that.

        • That article says nothing about McAuliffe’s message.

          • That brings us to transvaginal ultrasounds. Cuccinelli, as the state’s attorney general, supported a bill that would have made the invasive procedure mandatory for women considering undergoing an abortion in Virginia. That was ample fodder for McAuliffe’s well-financed advertising campaign.

            “Both sides are trying to find dimensions on this issue that they can get leverage out of,” Sides says. “On the left, it can be vaginal ultrasounds; on the right, it could be ‘partial birth’ abortion.

          • That was in his attack ads against Ken. He campaigned on jobs.

          • Which is why he set up a website devoted to protecting Virginia’s anti-sodomy law.

            Yes, this was in TM’s attack ads against Cuccinelli – reminding voters that he would block extreme right wing laws like the transvaginal ultrasound law.

            So as Mr. WIlmore said: “Mission accomplished.”

    • MD Russ

      “…gerrymandered Republican General Assembly…”? What a canard. The Senate is far more gerrymandered than the House and its districts were redrawn by a Democratic majority following the 2000 census. And yet the Democrats still couldn’t hold the majority. The truth is that Virginians don’t accept the Democratic agenda and that Democrats only get elected statewide when the Republicans nominate bozos like Cuccinelli and Jackson.

  • AFF

    Zero accomplishments?

    While I agree with you that not being able to convince republicans to expand Medicaid and in so doing return about $10,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars to Virginia was a failure, forgive me for thinking that being at the helm and vetoing 95 bills out of recent General Assemblies is a pretty big accomplishment.

    I shudder to think where we’d be had Terry McAuliffe not been around.

    • Vetoing everything that lands on your plate is not an accomplishment. It’s an acknowledgement that you can’t govern.

      • AFF

        Governing the current monkey houses is impossible- ask the current speaker and the guy he replaced. The monkey house doesn’t want to be governed. They want to throw feces instead- it’s more fun and it’s easier.

        When leading the monkey house is impossible you focus on cleaning up the sh$t. I hate to fall back on the easy comparison between DC to Richmond but clearly the same dynamic has been in place.

        The 2 republican playbooks have 1 formation- oppose everything entirely. Unfortunately for team R, this has resulted in an inability to form actual policy.

        • That’s funny, considering that these same folks were in charge when Tim Kaine and Mark Warner were governor.

          • AFF

            You know, it is kinda funny. I often prefer to look at blatant hypocrisy through the lens of humor.

            Break it down a little. What happened to those guys? Both Warner and Kaine tasted some legislative success and were viewed as popular governors. Now they’re Senators.

            So here come McAuliffe and the same guys who watched Warner and Kaine ascend were determined to not let history repeat itself. They decided to follow the lead from their comrades in Washington- obstruction.

            Plus, they’ve been hating on Terry for decades. They started hating Terry Mac way back when Obama was hanging out smoking weed with the Choom gang.

            Now I realize you follow this horse race much closer than me but you’re telling me you don’t see any parallels between the obstruction in DC and what went on in Richmond during Terry’s term? How many of those 95 bills Terry struck down were guaranteed vetos the day they hit the floor? Was this the only year the Tebow bill was introduced? Was Terry ever going to sign the bill in your post?

            Hell no he wasn’t, and most of the people in Richmond knew it. Kinda like the full repeal of the ACA that won’t ever see a vote now that it could actually be signed.

          • Both Speaker Howell and Majority Leader Norment are old-school followers of the Virginia way. They weren’t going to roll over for McAuliffe’s agenda, but they weren’t going to go out of their way to be rude and break the traditions and mores of the GA.

            Terry is the one who did that. And the response he got was pretty blunt. That’s not how we do things, basically.

            I do see the parallels between DC and Richmond, but those started when Terry was elected – he brought Washington style politics to Richmond. It certainly wasn’t Speaker Howell or Senator Norment who did that.

            What Terry didn’t do was find a way to work with the legislature to create bills he could sign – he refused even to admit there was an issue worth legislating about in most cases so he didn’t bother. But he knew he could spin the vetoes into some kind of victory, even though they represent an inability to govern, not the nonsense “fighting for you” trope.

          • Both Speaker Howell and Majority Leader Norment are old-school followers of the Virginia way.

            Until they weren’t.

          • They still were. That was McAuliffe’s fault.

          • I see – you seem to think that the Virginia Way requires the House GOP to roll over when somebody breaks the tradition.

          • Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax) added: “Their objections came at the last minute and on the fly. They had no process. They did no interviews. They posted no advertisements. They didn’t involve the public. They didn’t request input from all members of the General Assembly. It isn’t even clear if they considered all of their own caucus. And just today, the majority party refused to interview a sitting justice for her own position.”

          • Correct. And all of that started because McAuliffe couldn’t pick up the phone.

          • Dave Albo and Greg Habeeb – both Republicans – supported the Roush appointment. Albo himself recommended Roush to McAuliffe and stood next to him during the announcement. Suggesting that McAuliffe didn’t coordinate this choice with GOP leaders in the General Assembly because he “couldn’t pick up the phone” simply makes no sense.

            To be sure, TM could have stroked Howell’s and Norment’s ego a bit more. Or Maybe Republicans in the GA would have stuck with the “Virginia Way” but got an earful from donors and religious leaders before naming their preference on Sunday night at 10:30. But McAuliffe held with tradition and the GOP didn’t.

          • It’s courtesy, not ego stroking.

          • We don’t live in 2007. They didn’t have the Tea Parties going after them from the right. Which says a lot about whether they have grounded values and true commitments or simply want to make sure they stay in power.

      • No, it’s a sign that the GOP legislature tried to go too far to the right and the Governor stood up for the people.

        • The legislature didn’t do anything it hasn’t done in the past without these kinds of mass vetoes.

          • Which explains why Governor McAuliffe didn’t get a chance to veto a bill which would have allowed disclosing refugee records. The legislature has done this “…in the past without these kinds of mass vetoes,” so it was already Virginia law.

        • MD Russ

          The legislature is more representative of the people than the Governor. Civics 101.

          • Depends on your definition of “representative of the people.” If you mean the individuals holding statewide office represent the aggregate of political opinion in the Commonwealth, it’s the Governor/Lt. Governor/Attorney General. If you mean the organization that controlled redistricting after the last census and protected their seats with gerrymandered districts represents the aggregate of political opinion in the Commonwealth, it’s the GA and Senate, which includes Republicans and Democrats. Both parties work this system. Neither seems to have much appetite for competitive elections.

            In any event, numerous vetoes of reactionary legislation is a win for the people of Virginia – the entire voting cohort of them – who elected Terry McAuliffe to keep Virginia on a centrist path by doing exactly this.

          • MD Russ

            Fine. Live in your own alternate universe that denies the realities of political science. One in which a Governor who is elected by the plurality of the concentrations of voters in norther Virginia, Richmond, and the Tidewater is more representative of the Commonwealth than the voters in the southside, the southwest, the northern neck, and the rural central counties.

          • One of the realities of “political science,” whatever that means, is that elected officials represent different constituencies. If you want to discuss the academic literature on this I”m happy to since I’m very familiar with it. And it’s not “Civics 101” unless you think your own intuitive thoughts on the subject, informed by talk radio and Breitbart, settle the question.

            But first define what you mean by “representative of the people.”

          • Susan Sili


  • TruthSayer100

    Virginians should hang him

    • MD Russ

      Agree. Short drop.

  • Pingback: Virginia General Assembly Sine Die, Part Five - Bearing Drift()

  • Pingback: Virginia General Assembly Convenes Veto Session Wednesday - Bearing Drift()

  • Pingback: General Assembly Convenes Veto Session Wednesday |

  • Pingback: The Quiet Competence of Frank Wagner - Bearing Drift()

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.