AG Live blog roundup

Well, Attorney General Bob McDonnell finished his live blog here a bit ago. Included in the questions were some softball ones and some hard ones. I believe one of his answers should leave no doubt that he is planning a run for governor in 2009:

[…] I do have a distinct interest in the elections in 2009, and plan to be on the ballot. Being Attorney General is a great job, but I believe I can accomplish alot for the citizens of Virginia as Governor.

The AG will be facing Lt Gov Bill Bolling in 2009. Bolling openly stated during his run for his current position last year that he was planning to run for governor in 2009. And while Bolling has not been as visible in the blogsphere as McDonnell, he has been around, attending both the Sorensen and Martinsville bloggers’ conferences. The thing that struck me about hearing Bolling speak in Charlottesville is how he is positioning himself for 2009. Bolling is attempting to play to the middle, which is, of course, where the votes are. To one of my Republican friends, this was quite funny, since Bolling is quite far to the right. (If I recall correctly, Bolling said in Charlottesville that some people call him a “right-wing nut.”)

Let me give the AG a bit of advice if he is serious about a gubernatorial run in 2009: stop running to the right. You are leaving a trail of published opinions, blog postings, media quotes and so forth that will make it impossible for you to appeal to anything other than the right wing of the Republican party. And there aren’t enough votes there to win the governor’s mansion, let alone a primary against Bolling.

As I am sure he expected, many of the questions revolved around the Marshall Newman amendment. AG McDonnell is an outspoken supporter of the amendment and chose to combine two questions into one answer, his only comments on the amendment:

[…]The General Assembly has placed the ballot question before the citizens to raise to a level of constitutional protection several statutory provisions limiting marriage to one man and one woman and prohibiting civil unions and similar relationships. The amendment was proposed in the wake of the United States and Massachusetts Supreme Court decisions which created a concern that the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) might be invalidated on constitutional grounds.

Opponents have stated that the constitutional amendment will affect the ordinary civil rights of Virginians concerning wills, contracts, and advanced medical directives, as well as weakening protections for unmarried partners who are victims of domestic violence. I believe legally this is absolutely incorrect. The General Assembly’s Privileges and Elections committees passed an official explanation of the Amendment with a strong bi-partisan majority, Democrats and Republicans, agreeing with that legal analysis. The central issue is whether marriage in Virginia should remain between one man and one woman. That is what November’s vote is about.

Contrary to what hrconservative says, this is just one man’s opinion on what he believes the answer is and certainly is not definitive. Unfortunately, the AG did not answer my followup question to this answer:

Mr. McDonnell

At the time the explanation was passed, the Washington Post reported:

Several constitutional scholars and a House staff attorney who penned the original language for the committee said in interviews Wednesday that they believed the approved language went beyond the limits of state law.

The language “carries with it some problems under the neutrality standard . . . because it argues points that proponents and opponents have already brought before committees,” the attorney, Mary Spain, told the committee.

“Discretion is the better part of valor here,” said Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond. ” . . . This could potentially be very misleading for voters, and that’s not neutral.”

You say the committee passed the language with “strong-bipartisan support” but the vote was 12-6 vote (nays: Scott, Brink, Alexander, Sickles, Dance, Englin – all Democrats). Do you still believe that the explanation was neutral and not in violation of the Code?

As Attorney General for the Commonwealth, do you not have a responsibility to advocate for all of its citizens?

I already knew the answer to the “strong-bipartisan majority” piece. According to the General Assembly website, the House Privileges and Elections Committee consists of 21 members:

Putney (Chairman), Ingram, Marshall (of Prince William), Hargrove, Jones (of Suffolk) (Vice Chairman), Albo, Rapp, Cole, Cosgrove, Frederick, Fralin, O’Bannon, Bell, Phillips, Scott (of Fairfax), Brink, Alexander, Joannou, Sickles, Dance, Englin

The vote, as mentioned in my question above, was 12-6, with all 6 of those who were against the “explanation” being Democrats. Of the remaining 15 members, 12 are Republican, 2 are Democrats and 1 is an Independent. With three members absent, the very best that the ayes could have included were 9 R’s, 2 D’s and 1 I. I hate to disagree with the AG, but that ain’t a “strong bi-partisan majority.” (Note: The Senate P&E Committee voted 9-5. I do not have the vote breakdown but the committee consists of 15 members, 8 R’s and 7 D’s.)

So, here’s my point: if the AG is wrong about the “strong bi-partisan majority” approving the explanation, couldn’t he also be wrong about the other stuff?

One thing he is right about. The supporters of the amendment only want to talk about the part of it that the AG says is the central issue: “whether marriage in Virginia should remain between one man and one woman.” Unfortunately, that is not all the amendment is about and when voters read the whole thing, they see that.

The only way we can be sure that contracts and wills will not be voided, that medical directives will not be ignored, that domestic violence laws will not be invalidated, is to Vote NO on NOvember 7.