Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 08/09/2007 3:20:26 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore and 11th District Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-Fairfax County, are a pair of potential Republican statewide rivals who said this week that Virginia should abolish its controversial abusive driver fees.
"I don’t think the approach is a good one," Gilmore said Tuesday.
"The people of Virginia do know that it’s using the traffic law for revenue," said the former governor, who is meeting with Republican groups across the state to explore a possible run for the U.S. Senate next year or for governor again in 2009.
"I think people are angry about it," said Gilmore, 57. "I think people are uncomfortable because they think anybody can get those things whether they are an abusive driver or not" and because only in-state drivers are subject to the civil remedial fees.
Gilmore and Davis are considered the two most likely candidates for the GOP nomination if U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Alexandria, decides to retire. Warner, 80, has said he will announce next month whether he will retire next year or seek a sixth six-year term.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsvirginian.com ...
This sounds like the beginning of a collision cource between two powerhouses in the GOP. On one hand, Gilmore is clearly more conservative, but he’s proven himself an mediocre campaigner & Governor, and Mark Warner succeeded him. Tom Davis would be a continuance of John Warner, but he was central in Republicans winning Congress in 1994 and holding it in the following election, against considerable odds. And he represents a constituancy that is the state’s swing vote.
It’s a tough call.
I don’t blame Gilmore for Mark Warner’s election. It was the vicious and ugly internecine battle between Mark Earley and John Hager that cost us the election. It was all over when Hager’s sour grapes big $$ supporters went to Warner. It is worth pointing out that Gilmore did beat a credible candidate in 1997, and won by the second highest percentage for the office in the past quarter century (George Allen was the highest).
If memory serves, Tom Davis’ wife Jean (who is a state senator) voted FOR the outrageous fines.
Would have been better if he had put in his two cents when it mattered.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Tom Davis is anti-gun and is a constant suck up to The Washington Post editiorial board.
His wife is in trouble over this issue and her anti-gun record. Her Dem opponent has a better record on gun rights then she does.
I agree that Gilmore is not entirely to blame for Mark Warner's election. He certainly didn't help.
But, as a John Hager delegate I disagree strongly with your assessment of what happened afterwards. John was willing to campaign for Earley, but Earley's campaign people snubbed him, even laughed at him. I saw it happen.
Many of the $$ people did go to Warner because Earley was seen as too far too the right.
But ultimately Mark Earley lost because he ran like oatmeal. By late summer you could see there was no fire in his belly for the campaign.
I argued on FR at the time that there were a couple of weeks in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that could have turned things around for Earley. But no one wanted to politicize it, and that was probably the right choice.
Reality was Earley had alread lost by August.
I'm convinced John Hager could have won. He would at least have given Mark Warner a run for his money. John is a tireless campaigner.
Was it not enough for you that you helped get Jim Webb elected?
You and I have been over this one on several occasions, and we disagree. I was paying close attention to the race, and it was ultimately Hager’s moneyed Establishment supporters that shafted Earley. You might’ve had a problem with some of Earley’s people, but the proof was in the pudding when Hager went to work for Warner in his administration. Very disappointing.
Ultimately, both men could’ve gotten the Governorship if Hager had merely waited his turn (the deal should be that whichever candidate has seniority or receives more votes if elected at the same time, and Earley had Hager beat in that regard).
Honestly, it would’ve been better for us if L.F. Payne had beaten Hager in ‘97, as a brutal Payne-Warner showdown for the top job would’ve assured an Earley victory.
We had a similar repeat the following year here in TN when an Establishment candidate jumped into the Governor’s race and bled the Conservative nominee dry. Thanks to that, we’ve had a buffoon “businessman” presiding over the most corrupt rodent regime in 30 years.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I don’t know if you were in Tennessee or Virginia at the time. But I was in Virginia living through it and working on the campaign.
I could say more. But I won’t.
Bottom line is, we should have won that race.
That we agree 100% on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.