CommenTerry

Cuccinelli Should Postpone His Gubernatorial Ambitions

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has announced that he will seek the state’s GOP gubernatorial nomination in 2013. This decision does not sit well with Lt. Governor Bill Bolling, who deferred seeking the Republican nomination for governor in order to allow then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell to run unopposed for it. McDonnell then went on to defeat Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds in the general election to become Virginia’s current governor.

When Bolling deferred in 2009, it was with the understanding that he would be allowed to run unopposed for the nomination in 2013. He had what he thought was a kind of gentlemen’s agreement with the movers and shakers of the Virginia GOP. It was supposed to be his turn to run for governor in 2013. Now he feels like he has been stabbed in the back and I don’t blame him one bit. His good deed will apparently not go unpunished.

If Cuccinelli follows through with his decision to run, it will create a tumultuous battle for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, which will likely help the Democrats take back the governor’s mansion in 2013, after having lost it four years earlier. If Cuccinelli wins the nomination, it will probably mean that no Virginia politician – Republican or Democrat – will ever again defer his or her ambitions for higher office to achieve party unity.

At age 43, Ken Cuccinelli is still a young man and has been the state’s attorney general for less than two years. Before that, he spent seven and a half years as an obscure state senator. So, despite his tremendous popularity among conservatives, he’s been in the political limelight only a short time. He should follow Bill Bolling’s example and defer his gubernatorial ambitions until 2017. Bolling did the right thing in 2009. Cuccinelli should do the right thing in 2013.

And the 2012 GOP Vice Presidential Nominee Is …

It’s a very rare thing to know the identity of a major party’s vice presidential nominee before we know who its presidential nominee is, but that could be the case in 2012. Despite all the all speculation by the media about Marco Rubio, Bob McDonnell, Chris Christie, and others, I believe the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee will be none other than Ron Paul. This, of course, would dispense of all the silly talk about him running as third party candidate.

There are several major reasons why Paul will be vice presidential nominee. First of all, though he has no realistic chance to be the presidential nominee, he is going to win a solid percentage of the vote in most of the primaries and caucuses. And, unlike in 2008, he may actually win a handful of them, including the leadoff contest in Iowa. He is polling at an average of 8 to 15 percent in most states. And in some states such as Iowa, his numbers are approaching 20 percent.

Secondly, the majority of the states will select their delegates to the GOP nominating convention in 2012 on a percentage-of-the vote basis, instead of the winner-take-all basis that many of them used in 2008 and prior years. Assuming Paul could garner 8 to 15 percent of the vote in every caucus and primary, he could accumulate a hefty number of delegates headed into the convention.

This may prevent any other candidate from collecting the required number of delegates needed to lock down the nomination prior to the convention. Think about it this way – if there are two major competitors still in contention for the duration of the primary and caucus season, it will be difficult for either of them get more than 50 percent of the delegates if another person is holding 15 percent of total. And that’s not even counting any of the other candidates, who might still be holding on to their delegates.

Thirdly and most importantly, Paul could use his delegates as a bargaining chip. This would allow him to become a king-maker at or just before the convention. However, as a condition of any deal to free up his delegates to vote for a given candidate, that candidate would have to promise to take him as his or her running mate. That would make Ron Paul the 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee before the convention ends. Remember where you heard it first.

NTSB Wants to Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recently recommended that people be banned from making calls or texting on the cell phones while driving, no exceptions. While its recommendation is not binding, I fear that that the federal government, as well as the states, will hastily begin the process outlawing all use of cell phones while driving. This will only continue our modern trend of rushing into zero tolerance policies without really thinking them through and or allowing for common sense exceptions.

It is quite true that a great many traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by people talking on a cell phone and or texting while driving. While this kind of activity should be generally outlawed, some exceptions should be made. For example, I see nothing wrong with allow people to talk on phone or text while they are stuck in traffic and moving along at less than five miles per hour. Honestly, how many people have been killed in automobile accidents in which no vehicle involved was moving at a speed of more than five miles per hour? I dare say few, if any.

But if we literally followed the NTSB’s recommendation, there would be no exception even for extremely low speeds. People who are stuck in traffic jams might need to phone a loved one and let them know they are okay so they won’t be worried. This is often not a luxury – it’s a necessity. What should we expect them to do, get out their car on an interstate highway and make the call? That would be much more dangerous than remaining in the car. And I’m sure there are other exceptions that people could think of.

The bottom line is that we should use common sense in situations like this, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The NTSB and other government entities should take heed.

Bad Economy No Problem for Parents this Christmas

In spite of the bad economy, the average U.S. mother will spend an average of $271 per child for Christmas this year, according to a recent poll circulated by the news media. Wow! That’s more than my parents spent on me for all Christmases combined from the time I was born to the time I was 18. Now, granted, I grew up in a very poor family, but $271 per child seems a bit extravagant in light of this nation’s current economic condition.

Keep in mind that food pantries across the nation are currently overburdened, with the demand for food items greatly exceeding the donations. There are too many people having to choose between medicine and food. There still too many who are having trouble buying food, purchasing adequate healthcare, and paying their mortgage or rent. A lot of them have had to go hungry, defer seeing a doctor, and face the possibility of living on the street in the near future.

But people can still afford to spend big bucks on their kids for Christmas. I really wonder about our priorities. Wouldn’t it be better if parents spent a little less on Christmas presents for their kids and donated part of the savings to the needy? It wouldn’t hurt children to learn to live a little more modestly and at the same time be reminded of the fact that there are others in the world who are not so fortunate. And getting a grip on their spending habits could prevent the parents – and therefore their entire families – from falling into poverty themselves.

Was It Right to Send Virginia Tech to Sugar Bowl?

A lot of college football fans and sports analysts alike are crying foul over the fact that Virginia Tech is going to the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans to take on Michigan. They argue that a one-loss team that is ranked higher in the BCS, such as Kansas State or Boise State, should be going instead. Virginia Tech has lost two games this season, both of which were blowout losses to Clemson, which is headed to the Orange Bowl to play West Virginia.

However, Virginia Tech is still ranked 11th in the BCS. According to BCS rules, any team that is ranked in the top 14 is eligible to be selected by one of the BCS bowls as an at-large entry. These bowls also reserve the right to pass to over other teams that might be ranked higher. Therefore, they were well within their rights to do what they did.

But was it fair? Well, let’s talk about fairness in regard to Virginia Tech. The last two times the Virginia Tech basketball team had a winning record in the ACC, it was passed up for a berth in the NCAA tournament, despite the fact that a winning record in the ACC has almost always been an automatic qualifier for the tournament over the past quarter century. And both times when they were passed up, Virginia Tech had a better RPI than some of the teams that were selected instead of them.

So, like they say, turnabout is fair play. Life is not fair. You win some and you lose some in the game of life and in sports. Sometimes you’re the hammer, sometimes you’re the nail. Sometimes you’re with windshield, sometimes you’re the bug. Sometimes unfair disadvantages are compensated for with unfair advantages, or vice versa. It all pretty much evens out in the end. So learn live with it.

More Nonsense About Obama

Now, the usually rational Charles Krauthammer appears to be coming down with a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. In a recent column, he appears to buying into the silly notion that, if President Obama is re-elected, the U.S. will never recover. Good grief!

Here’s how I know that he and all the others who are spouting such nonsense don’t really believe it themselves. Let’s suppose that Obama is indeed re-elected. Almost immediately thereafter, several Republicans will begin laying the groundwork for a 2016 run for the presidency. Among those will likely be Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and Paul Ryan, just to name a few.

During their campaigns, they will all be touting their plans for how they will help the nation recover from eight years of Obama. That right, I said recover – something that Krauthammer and many other Republicans are now claiming cannot happen if Obama gets a second term. But despite all of this, those same people will be acting as the amen corner any GOP candidate who claims to have a recovery plan for America in 2016. Go figure!

How to Remedy Four Weeks of College Football Withdrawal

This is a tough time of the year for college football fans. The regular season has abruptly ended and there will still be weeks before any of the major bowls are played. The fact that the NFL’s regular season goes on for four weeks after the college reason ends just makes things even worse. The college football regular season is 14 weeks long (counting the conference championship week but not counting the Army-Navy game). The NFL regular season lasts for 17 weeks. But college football begins its season a week before the NFL does, accounting for the four-week gap at the end. For me, that creates four weeks of college football withdrawal every December.

So, how could this be remedied? First, college football should delay the start of its season for one week to coincide with the start of the NFL season. Then, during the final three weeks of the NFL season, college football should begin rolling out some of its major bowls. They could still wait until New Year’s Day to play the Rose Bowl, but why not consider playing the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls, one weekend at a time, to coincide with the last three weeks of the NFL regular season? They could throw in a couple of the minor bowls during each of those weekends as well, just as appetizers. That would certainly go a long way toward eradicating college football withdrawal.

What’s the Big Deal About Romney’s Bet?

So Mitt Romney offered to bet Rick Perry $10,000 regarding something Perry accused him of in a recent debate. Big freaking deal! Who cares? Apparently the media does. As usual, the media is blowing a trivial matter way of proportion. I’m not a big fan of Mitt Romney, but it’s utterly ridiculous to claim that his bet was some kind of gaffe.

The press claims that this demonstrates the “fact” that he is way of touch with the average voter. However, I doubt that the average voter even cares. Voters are looking for a candidate who is going to provide real leadership to this country. They couldn’t care less about some silly bet that was obviously proposed in a rhetorical manner.

Why the Presidential Primaries Are More Interesting Than the General Election

There are two major reasons why I say this. First, there are almost always, at least at the beginning, more candidates competing in the primaries than in the general election, which is usually limited to one candidate from each of the two major parties. Very often, the primaries will in involve 10 or 12 candidates at the outset. I believe the more the merrier. Second, primaries tend to be more unpredictable than the general election. I have found that a last minute surprise is much more likely to occur in a primary than in the November election. And an upset like that, when it occurs during a primary, frequently has a ripple effect through the subsequent primaries, resulting in the entire race for the nomination being shaken up.

Does a Bear Know How to Use a Rake?

The other day, a local TV newsman breathlessly yelled out the following headline: “Local man fights off a bear armed with a rake.” Obviously, he meant the man was the one who was armed with the rake, but the wording of his statement made it sound like the bear was wielding the rake. It would have been more clear if he has said, “Local man, armed with a rake, fights off a bear.” That would have eliminated any confusion.

This reminds me of a long-running TV commercial for a local body shop. The owner always ends the commercial by stating, “You’re the customer, not the insurance company.” Every time I see this commercial, I “answer” it by saying, “I didn’t think I was the insurance company.” Obviously, the owner of the body show really means to say, “You’re the customer, the insurance company is not the customer.” But it sounds like he might be trying to say, “You’re the customer; you’re not the insurance company.” He should say exactly what he means.