Not Larry Sabato
has his scenarios and some of them might strike fear into partisans on either side, but there’s nothing scarier than the implied scenario Chris Graham offers in the Augusta Free Press: Russ Potts wins the governor’s race and has to govern.
Senator Potts, of course, has thought this through, and offered these encouraging words to the electorate: “Well, governing is the least of my worries. I know we can govern.”
(comments below)
(comments below)
If this on a cold day in Hell were to happen, and if you are to believe Potts’ campaign pronouncements (a stretch in itself since he has totally reversed himself in the last few years) there is no doubt how he would govern. He would govern as a Democrat. He would follow the same path he has been on in the Senate for the last few years proposing increases in spending and taxes. He would fall in line with the social liberals and fiscal “tax and spenders” that comprise the Democrat caucus and a minority of the Republican Senate. He in fact might have a majority in the legislature in agreement with him at least in the Senate (depending on election outcomes). The problem is it would be a total disaster for the State. Soon we would be a mirror image of MD.
We don’t normally comment on statewide politics, but we must here.
Russ is way to the left of Maryland.
I’d like to add something here that I haven’t seen mentioned.
Candidate Kilgore and the conservatives in the GA, especially in the House of Delegates are following Biblical example when they call for the use of referendum.
In one of the most important decisions of all history, the sitting Governor at the time allowed the people to have the final say.
Pontius Pilate washed his hands…
Roughly translated from the original Latin transcripts his comment to the Judean media,
“I trust the people, always have, always will.”
Anon 11:32,
Well said.
Thank you Laszlo.
Where’s ben tribbett when you need him?
What lunacy believes Pontius Pilate was elected?
….or an assembled mob the same as Virginia voters?
Virginians deserve an apology for this analogy.
subpatre,
With all due respect to you and your well considered opinions, please explain the difference you see? I thought the analogy to be quite poignant and a perspective that I honestly hadn’t considered.
Again, please explain?
“Poignant” hell! Facts matter.
– Pilate wasn’t an elected governor.
– Chanting mobs aren’t elections.
Like the different meanings of the word “bat”, the term “governor” doesn’t create equivalency.
[Probably a waste of time, but…]
Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea 26 to 36 CE under Emperor Tiberius, appointed by the Roman Senate to administer the conquered province.
Responsibility (from Rome’s viewpoint) was taxes; supervising collection, coinage, provincial financing, auditing and oversight of projects. To that end the governor –whether prefect or proconsul– commanded an army and was the province’s supreme judge. Control of Judea was total and totalitarian.
Our Constitution should clue anyone to the differences between Virginia’s government and that in Roman Empire provinces. If the difference seems elusive, find the section authorizing impromptu executions and get back to us.
——-
There is no equivalency between Virginians’ voting in an election, and a mob (Luke 23:1, Matt 27:20) chanting for a person’s death. Implying any connection is simplistic, deceitful, and insulting to Virginia citizens. They deserve an apology.
The concept that referendums are the same as lynch-mobs –that referendums will result in impulsive, uninformed decisions– is revealing. Referendum votes are the same conditions as those for candidates.
If Virginia voters can’t be trusted to vote on specific, limited, clearly defined and known items; how could they possibly be trusted to make decisions about candidates, when so much isn’t known about them? “Those people just don’t know what’s good for them” sums up your position.
You’ll have to decide whether your weak and ultimately vain attempt to spin history was or was not a waste of time.
FACT: This may well have been one of the first uses of pure democracy in recorded history.
“Chanting mobs aren’t elections”
Did they vote? Most assuredly they did.
This is the point of the whole passage, that the people, by majority choice, decided to refuse God’s gift of his son to save them. And he chose to be merciful anyway.
The framers of our constitution took this into account when they created our government as a REPUBLIC….. Not a democracy…..
Pure democracy is ultimately “mob rule” and subject to the heat of passion fired up by disinformation and propaganda, just as was the mob who “voted” to crucify. That is precisely why our founders included “checks and balances.”
As to your objection that Pilate was not elected… So? If anything that only weakens your argument further. He had the absolute authority to make a ruling based on his best judgment of the facts (or even his whim) and like many modern politicians chose not to do so and decided instead to let “the people” decide after their being subjected to a “media blitz” by the folks who didn’t want to see things change.
Pretty common lesson, don’t know how you missed it.
Why don’t you believe in American Representative Government?
Perhaps it is you who owe Virginians an apology.
You claim: “Did they vote? Most assuredly they did.“
So what’s the tally? Votes are counted. You claim to know more than the Gospels, records, and every historian since Christ.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, shows that the execution of Christ :
– was properly petitioned
– met the June filing deadline
– got certified at the capital
– was on the November general ballot
– had votes cast by pre-registered voters
– votes all cast at the correct precinct(s)
– was tallied by qualified electoral boards
– had counting witnessed by all parties
– was certified by the SBE or equal
Leaving out items without direct equivalent, like proper ballot forms, challenge of petitioners, etc. The “vote” simply wasn’t a vote, doesn’t even approach it.
Your spin’s clearly dishonest; your only “fact” fabricated. The closest parallel to the conviction of Christ is a mob of lobbyists and special interests at the Executive mansion, and Governor Warner caving in.
Subpatre is actually very correct in his last parallel. It’s very likely that “the crowd” in the case of Pilate’s decision was nothing more than a few rabbel rousers and members of the Jewish Religious Leadership (Sanhedrin) who brought them out and who were politically opposed to Christ out of the fear that he was going to bring in a new kingdom out of revolution and throw them out of power. So actually, this was just a bunch of “special interest lobbyists” trying to influence a Governor (unelected as he was) and the Governor caving in. It was nothing close to a ballot initiative.
BTW I for one am opposed to ballot initiatives in general as it does allow the legislature to hide on difficult issues. Just look at California over the last 25 years for evidence of this. The CA legislature really addresses nothing of importance anymore.
I also doubt the ballot initiative could ever remain “specific, limited, clearly defined and known…”. The problem is the more you use referenda, the more the special interests get involved in “campaigning” the issue in order to blur the facts and make what should be simple, very complex.
As an example look again at CA. I remember in the 80’s when I lived there on military assignment that my wife would get huge tomes of paperwork from the government in order to review both side’s positions on the referendum being considered. It became a huge effort in order to understand just what was being asked. Also, you’d have huge media campaigns from seemingly unrelated areas. On one redistricting referendum I remember the Sierra Club running spots claiming that if the referendum were to pass we would have off-shore drilling, more pollution, and utter devastation to the environment. No mention in the sopts on what the actual referendum was about (state legislative redistricting), just a tug at the ole heart-strings about the environment. You would have thought based on the campaign that it was a referendum on permission for polluters to do whatever on earth they wanted.
So, while I agree that the referendum link to Biblical history is incorrect, I have to side myself with those who disagree with anyone (conservative or liberal) that thinks referenda are a good idea on other than constitutional issues.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.